What's even the point of reading Kirkegaard if you're

Fuck off soren. You're STILL not a lit meme

>>8463555
What's even the point of being an atheist when Pascal's wager exists

>>8463572
is this bait?

>>8463597
not him but honestly, try and argue against the wager
you can't
check m8 for real

>>8463600
it's stupid, it assumes that since if you don't believe in god, you risk going to hell, you're better off just believing in one since even if you're wrong you're just dead anyways. what if you believe in the wrong god, what if you pick the wrong religion or ideology out of the thousands that exist and you are punished for actually doing the wrong thing anyways? what if a deity exists that doesn't care if you worship it.
It just makes massive assumptions

>>8463555
Just read Either/Or instead of Fear and Trembling

>>8463640
ur mom makes massive assumptions about my dick

>>8463655
yeah, she assumed it would be bigger

>>8463655
>>8463676
and not shriveled and permanently limp

>>8463640
Christianity is obviously the only valid religion.

>>8463705
why is that?

>>8463676
>>8463681
Whatever, fuck bitches acquire entry to the pearly gates
Kirkegaard had his priorities right

>>8463640
Idiot
>>8463705
Basically, specific types of Christianity.
>>8463706
The problem with people's challenge to the wager (many G/gods challenge) is that they believe the only 'benefit' in the wager is going to heaven. This is a misunderstanding, what's at stake is not 'going to heaven'/'going to hell' but 'going to heaven on one's terms'. Many people are not willing to live in a 'heaven' where they are diluted and placated into something that they are not. In example: many people are not willing to experience bliss if it can only be achieved by sedating oneself with drugs that keep you chair bound and unconscious. This eliminates the many gods issue because there are many potential gods that we are simply not willing to engage with (where going to their heaven is not actually a benefit to us). What I am getting at is, each of us has to determine which God or gods we believe have the integrity to make going to 'their' heaven the actual benefit that Pascal discusses in his wager. Just going to a heaven is not necessarily a benefit.

>>8463760
you have a child like understanding of religion

>>8463768
My post has nothing to do with religion but with faith. I don't need pascal's wager for mine.

>>8463760
no it's about probability. i believe you misunderstand the wager itself. pascal dismissed the many gods argument because he viewed the numerous pagan religions and others as merely superstition and just brushed over them.
what about inauthentic belief? genuine belief isn't a choice, so isn't it impossible to choose to believe out of fear of the possibility of punishment?

>>8463705
/pol/ please go

>>8463805
If you read Pascal you know he addresses the issue of genuine belief. He believed that if one committed oneself to a faith and to ritual, even if it begins as a mere cost-benefit 'going through the motions', over time it will develop into something genuine. Whether or not you accept that is a different story.

My earlier post isn't as much about Pascal's way of avoiding the 'many gods' because clearly, many people don't think he did avoid it. It's actually not about probability though, it's a cost-benefit that demonstrates the potential benefits of belief so far outweigh the costs that you'd have to be insane to bet against them. Pascal isn't actually saying that it is much more probable that God is real, even though he definitely believed it was.

>>8463600
His wager is made from a Catholic perspective which assumes certain characteristics about the nature of God and the afterlife which not all other Christian sects agree with, and conflates the two, without considering the infinite other possible combinations of divine nature and afterlife, each of which much be factored into one's risk assessment for adopting any particular religious practice.

For example, eastern religions have samsara, or the endless cycle of death and rebirth, where the process to be freed from that does not require acknowledging the existing of a deity at all, but attaining enlightenment through spiritual practice.

So there might be "infinite bliss" in the Christian heaven, which might make any sacrifice to attain it worth while, as Pascal argues, but there are also an infinite number of other possibilities not taken into account which would negates the value of this infinite bliss as an overriding factor in decision making. Each of these possibilities have their own ritualistic requirements, most of which would be incompatible with each other if following these rituals or divine decrees plays a role in what happens in the afterlife.

He also states that if you lose the wager and there is no God and heaven, you lose nothing, but this isn't true. Simply acknowledging God exists doesn't got you into heaven, you have to follow his rules and live your life a certain way, which can be considered a cost as you have to sacrifice your time and resources.

What's the point of even being?

>>8464175
suffering

File: kW_r0LTkXWM.jpg (68KB, 600x394px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x394px

so you can become a great individual

File: 07b83504f44cafbe0e88cb0026a1a4cc.jpg (13KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x354px

>>8463705

>>8463555
>What's even the point of reading Kirkegaard if you're an atheist?
Why watch porn if you're a virgin?

Just fucking read and stop worrying about if you're wasting your precious time

File: 250px-Lacan2.jpg (11KB, 250x183px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x183px

>>8463555
Kirkegaard is noticeable not for his debate on the matters of faith but for his precise analysis of public discourse of his time.

File: ABcrop.jpg (168KB, 1000x946px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1000x946px

Pascal's Wager is one of those things that reminds me how utterly fucking stupid most philosophy is, whenever I'm tempted to try that shit again. A drunk three year-old can spot the holes and assumptions in that idiocy.

>>8464798
that is a nice shirt

>not knowing about determinate negation
why would you start with Kirkegaard if you haven't read Hegel yet?

File: fullpose01edit.jpg (155KB, 584x1200px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 584x1200px

>>8464811
Why, thank you! It's my "ontology is strictly for entertainment" shirt.

>What's even the point of reading someone who has a different belief than you?
>What's even the point of learning about other people's beliefs and ways of thinking?

Anyway, I read A Sickness Unto Death and some of it can be taken philosophically without having to do with religion.

>>8464798
>le philosophy is stupid and irrelevant
>my evidence is one not very important philosophical idea
Do you believe scientism is flawless too?

>>8464826
I would kierkegaard all over them titties mang

>>8464860
>the scientism meme
cringe

>>8464174
>He also states that if you lose the wager and there is no God and heaven, you lose nothing, but this isn't true. Simply acknowledging God exists doesn't got you into heaven, you have to follow his rules and live your life a certain way, which can be considered a cost as you have to sacrifice your time and resources.
He acknowledges that lol...

Again, just another stupid 'many gods' argument.

File: BunnyThong.jpg (106KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 750x1000px

>>8464860
You're slightly confused, sir. I didn't present any "evidence": I'm not making a case for anything, or trying to convince anyone. I gave my off-hand and subjective emotional opinion on something, and an example that was already being discussed. But calling Pascal's Wager "not very important" indicates you know even less about the history of philosophy than I do. And I said nothing about science or scientism at all.

>>8463555
Nice trips.

I'm agnostic, but I enjoy reading Kierkegaard because of the precision of his psychological insight into himself and humanity in general. He doesn't spare himself. I also recommend Proust for the same reasons (though all this assumes you enjoy that sort of writing).

File: expanded.png (2MB, 1280x1466px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1466px

>>8463600

File: 7ssbb.jpg (333KB, 1200x877px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1200x877px

>>8463555
does op's pic remind anyone of pic related?

To have your thoughts provoked and your beliefs challenged cunt.

Imagine you wrote "What's the point of reading Schellenberg if I'm a Christian?"

>>8465451
Thanks anon, now I have to fire myself.

>>8465483
Beautiful.

File: Greenshirt.jpg (102KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 900x675px

>>8463600
The Wager is nonsensical unless you take as prior assumptions that we're talking about the Catholic faith, that the behaviour code being taught in that faith is accurate to God's whims (i.e. are a free ticket to heaven). We then must accept that belief in God equals eternal unlimited happiness, that going through the motions of faith will eventually make you a sincere believer (to avoid that pesky "I can't decide to believe in this shit, dude" reply), and the idea that you're probably doing all this for nothing is dismissed with "UNLIMITED happiness, bro! You can't measure silly little shit like how you spend your entire life against that!"). I get that it was groundbreaking in probability theory, decision theory, and anticipated shit like existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism, but as an actual argument for faith, it's laughably weak. Right from the "let's say there's about a 50/50 chance that the Catholic faith is entirely correct," it's obviously only meant for Christians to take seriously.

>>8465507
>>8465464
Wow, so deep.

File: Obo2_NwCQbw.jpg (112KB, 721x627px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 721x627px

>>8465483

>>8463600
Well, I'll take most of the assumptions at face value for now.

But even then, I think the wager is very badly mistaken in its the little attention it pays to the price of living a catholic life.

I mean, if God doesn't exist or you fuck up and go to hell, you don't get that unlimited happiness. I die and disappear completely.
If living the life of a catholic goes absolutely against all my wills and desires, I just wasted the only time I ever had anywhere doing a lot of bullshit for no gain. It isn't huge losses vs small losses, it is huge losses vs huge losses.

>>8465600
I larfed.

90% of philosophy is not read for the reason that you'd adopt the beliefs and opinions of the philosophers as your own

you learn about them, maybe take some parts of them that you found useful despite fundamental disagreements, understand other philosophers better, and so on

>>8465581
Saying so deep doesn't do shit.

File: Pulchritude-edit.jpg (146KB, 989x816px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 989x816px

>>8465642
This anon is smarter than I am. Here is boobage, in case you like that sort of thing.

>>8465886
Not him but I have slight erectile dysfunction and I am desensitised to breasts

File: greenbottom-sm.jpg (88KB, 1000x598px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1000x598px

>>8465902
That's a shame. Bottoms?

>>8463555
>What's even the point of reading Kirkegaard if you're an atheist
there's no point in doing anything as an atheist. you don't reflect or evaluate options, you just float from one animalistic urge to another.

>>8465945
Nice but it's not exciting enough for me

I've been on the Internet since I was like 8, been on 4chan since I was like 12. 19 now. I've seen a lot of porn. Maybe I need a month off.

>>8465945
>tfw you want to live in a small apartment near the seaside and have a new girl in your bed every week

Why do I live in Phoenix?

>>8465600
Best one yet

>>8463555
infinite jest: the wheelchair scene amongst more im sure i missed

>>8465790
You haven't addressed the responses to the 'many gods' argument. You just keep repeating it as though it's the end all be all to the wager.

>>8463555
Atheists need faith too.

>>8465970

literally raised on 4chan

God help you.

>>8466268
What are the responses?

>>8463600
Very successful bait. Respect

>>8463600
1. You can't know which god is the right one, you are more likely to pick the wrong one
2. Living a life according to religious doctrine, even though religions are most likely wrong, means you will waste huge parts of your life
3. If god is real, then he might respond negatively to dishonest calculated reasons for belief
4. All major religions got distorted over time, it might be impossible to follow the actual original commands of the god, assuming he existed

>>8466296
Don't need his help.

I'm very content with life.

I'm not very outgoing though in terms of social shit, but that's more because I see it as a waste of my time for the most part. I'd rather read a book or cook a nice curry than go out and get pissed with the lads and end up spending 60 quid on lap dances.

I'd see it mainly as a force for good in my life, aside from being a detrimental distraction. I've been introduced to music, literature, philosophy, alternative politics, fitness, food, and memes.

File: Knight of Faith.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

>>8463560
*Soren

>>8466304
The wager is not and never was about probability; it's not saying God's existence is more probable than God's non-existence. Simply says that it is more profitable (beneficial) to believe in Him because the potential benefits far outweigh the potential consequences.

The mistake being made is that people are interpreting the benefit to be 'heaven' and the consequences to be 'wasted time' or, in the event that He is real, 'hell'. The error lies specifically in the benefits section. The benefit is not merely heaven but 'heaven on acceptable terms'. Most self-respecting individuals are not going to find all 'heavens' to be equal. It's been said before there is a difference between a genuine happiness and the same kind of happy feeling being forced upon you by drugs or some other method. If you can agree with that distinction (materialists wont generally agree that there is a difference because to them everything might as well be a chemical response), then you'd also have to accept that not all 'heavens' are created equal. Those 'heavens' that align with your values and dignities become more beneficial, arguably infinitely more beneficial, than those that are at odds with them. In this way you can eliminate all those god options in the 'many gods' argument that are disagreeable to your values at the time of your choosing to accept the wager. For example a 'punishing believers God' option just doesn't mesh with my values. His 'heaven' is far less of a benefit to me than a Catholic God's heaven.

>>8465600
kek

The OP is actually from a subreddit about pictures accidentally looking like a renaissance painting. hough they never produce this level of prime OC
god bless you Anon

>>8465960
PLS
>doing anything wrong as an atheist
>have to live with shame and regret til your death, nothing forgives

>doing something wrong as a christian
>oops srry jesus
>it's alrite son, np, you're forgiven

File: 289004492.jpg (135KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x531px

>>8465980
>a new girl in your bed every week
D E G E N E R A C Y
M A N S L U T

>>8463555
>what's even the point of reading Blake and Rumi if you're an atheist?

File: 1362889586021.png (64KB, 500x641px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x641px

>>8466396

It's just a terrifying idea for me. When you were born I still had dial-up. Most families did not have a computer at all, let alone an internet connection. I remember loading millions of floppy discs to install a game under my dad's watchful eye in 1995. When you were a kid, did you go play in the park? Did you explore abandoned areas and catch frogs? Or was it all videogames indoors?

Do you know what tv was like in the 1990s? It was shit. Tiny, fuzzy, CRT screens, and "cable" included 12 channels unless your parents were really indulgent or liked it themselves.

There is an entire other world out there.

>>8463640

Most religions don't even mandate belief in said religion as a prerequisite for going to "heaven". I don't even like Pascal's Wager, but you fucking retards constantly bring up the "but which of the THOUSANDS do I pick" like its a valid argument when the bottom line is you just don't know SHIT about religion, probably don't really know shit about ANYTHING.

Here's a tip; very few 'religions' (idk if you could even call old god stuff religion, its not like it mandated belief most of the time) required belief for salvation. Most were too primitive for doing anything beyond "do good shit and go to heaven".

The fallacy you're making comes from sheltered fuccbois like yourself making the absolutely asinine assumption that all religions function just like Christianity, when in reality you haven't looked into many religions at all and probably haven't even left your little middle class suburb for anything more than a week

I'm a little drunk but yeah fuck you and the rest of your idiot atheist crew, you're all bonified retards , bring me a real fucking atheist to chat with cuz you ain't shit nigga

>>8466405
Soren*

>>8463600
It's utilitarian, which is universally understood to be a stupid way of valuing things.

Kierkegaard has tons to offer even atheists. Hell, in Fear and Trembling he puts himself in the same bracket with the faithless. The Knight of Infinite Resignation is simply a dude following a passion hard enough that he will resign/let go of anything for it. Any of the would-be professional writers on here would do well to read what he has to say about such a person, how to do it right, and how and what happens when you do it wrong.

>>8467816
F u c k

um for understanding theistic and atheistic European existentialism

>>8467806
Lmao mate just because I've been on the web for a while it doesn't mean that's all I've done.

Of course I've done kid shit. I've been out to the forests, played sword fights with big sticks, played gladiator on the rafts out on the beach, etc.

>do you remember 90s TVs

No but I do remember 00s TVs which were fat at the back and only had about 6 channels

>>8467816
>>8467818
Actually it's Soren*, you plebeians.

>>8463600
>A god would be fooled by people worshipping it for their benefit rather then genuine veneration

(You)

>>8464811
UUUU

>>8467806
Jesus, anon, the 90s weren't some special shithole. Growing up we only had four channels, two of which would show kids stuff, sometimes. I'm eighteen.

As for the rest -- I went online, sure. Mostly for flash games. But, my parents were slightly paranoid, and limited my time a great deal. As a result I did everything you think as normal -- as did everyone else, who wasn't limited.

This just sounds like your projecting.

I did know a kid who literally spent all day every day on vidya. Like, he got up at six just so he could play vidya before school, and went to bed at ~two. But he was autistic.

>>8467932
>the 90s weren't some special shithole
They were but for different reasons. That guy's fallen into the trap of trying to pathologise everyone, it often happens as peeps get older.

>>8467949
>They were but for different reasons
Yeah; what I really meant was that certain aspects of the nineties, which were shit, were not unique to the nineties.

For example, I genuinely cannot fathom living in a world without the internet. I know you had fanzines and stuff, but the thought of trying to organise niche interests like /tg/ or even /lit/, or trying to communicate with anyone about them like we do nowadays...it's horrible.

But then, you've got stuff like Arthur and Spongebob Squarepants, which was what we grew up with.

>>8467957
>For example, I genuinely cannot fathom living in a world without the internet. I know you had fanzines and stuff, but the thought of trying to organise niche interests like /tg/ or even /lit/, or trying to communicate with anyone about them like we do nowadays...it's horrible.
Usenet groups are/were very similar to 4chan discussion. And they cater to the nichest of niche interests.

>But then, you've got stuff like Arthur and Spongebob Squarepants, which was what we grew up with.
Are you trolling? Those are 90s cartoons (well Spongebob barely but w/e). Most people growing up in the 90s had that late 80s/early 90s educational aesthetic (with the lesson shoehorned in at the end) (I miss this in a way tbpqh). It also seemed like we were getting past racism in TV shows, but then everything seemed to go backwards in the 00s, and every black person had to suddenly contend with a secret or overt gangsta identity or be so background and token as to be wallpaper.

>>8467972
>usenet groups
Were fairly niche themselves, or so I thought.
>Are you trolling? Those are 90s cartoons (well Spongebob barely but w/e).
They showed them all the time when I was a kid. As it happens, both were getting new content well into the 00s.

>>8467981
I believe both are getting new conent even now.

And the internet itself was niche, but id you were on the internet you probably knew about usenet groups. Easily the biggest differences were lack of (good) search engines, so often you also had a kind of phonebook of useful websites.

I'm finding google's really gone to shit in the past couple of years tho, and in many ways is worse than a lot of early search engines.

>>8463600
If God exists and I'm an atheist, I have wasted my eternity because I will be in hell.

If Im a believer and there is no God, I will still have wasted my eternity/existence as all of it was wasted believing in a God that wasn't real.
Regardless, God would know that your're only worshiping him through fear of punishment and would send you to burn anyway

>>8467929
what did you mean by this?

>>8468031
If I explained it it would be extremely painful.

Guys, what did Anon mean by >>8468035?

>>8468043
He meant shut the fuck up and stop shitposting.

Saged and downvoted.

>>8468052
No gold for u :(

>>8465008
the 'many gods' argument works is both infalsifiable and a valid piece of rebuttal
>>8464174
>this
also I admire just how quickly this thread dissolved from the subject

From what I understand OP >>8463555 Kierkegaard is largely for historical importance as would Thompson and Bohr whom shaped their respective fields irrevocably.

Yet Kierkegaard had also said more beyond his petty theistic existentialism, he gave a comprehensible psychoanalysis - and one of the earliest ones I know of - on religious belief (rather confabulation) and even criticized followers of the Christian religion

>>8466415
I don't understand any of this. It sounds like you're saying the actual existence of God and heaven doesn't matter to the wager, just believing does.

>>8467304
What? Define wrong as an atheist.

Do you believe in Jesus (be nice, don't kill people, sympathize) but not God? If not then it's free game son.

Are you utilitarian?
You have all sorts of Wikipedia to read on how that system ruins people and civilization. Religion doesn't simplify questions of existence at all

Atheists are usually fools; it's difficult being a true, authentic atheist because you have to invent your own morality without killing yourself.

>>8468251
That's part of it. The wager assumes some possibility that God does not exist. But the point of the wager really has nothing to do with figuring out whether or not God exists. Pascal, in so much as I remember, does not give us a probablistic breakdown; God's existence may have a .01% chance of being the case. The actual probability of Him is irrelevant to the wager because the wager is focused on how noticeably the scales tip in favor of the benefits versus the costs.

The latter part of it is that what is commonly regarded as the 'benefit' (heaven) is not actually the whole 'benefit'. This argument only works if you make a distinction between two things based on HOW you get to those things. We usually imagine happiness as a part of heaven but we experience it in the real world as well so I use it as a clearer example here. Is there a difference between a happiness inspired in you through forced sedation that you would otherwise be against and a happiness that is achieved by means that are agreeable to you? If there isn't then the many gods argument will crush the wager for you. You're basically Cypher from the Matrix; doesn't matter how you get the feeling so long as you get it. If that's the case for you then all heavens are of equal benefit in the wager. If that is not the case however then not all heavens are of equal benefit. Only those heavens that are offered on terms you agree with are those that offer the highest possible benefit to you at the time of the wager. You can eliminate most of the 'many gods' options because, even if those gods turn out to be real, he benefit offered isn't a benefit, or at least a benefit of the same magnitude, to you and the wager is all about the degree to which the benefit outweighs the consequence. I don't think Pascal necessarily went in this direction because it weakens the wager a little bit but it's still useful.

first of all the concept of anxiety is one of his most complete works. The downside of it is that its one of the hardest but /lit/ likes to pretend to read hard texts so mb start pretending to read the concept of anxiety instead of either/or and fear and trembling.

As for OP: youre prolly baiting but whatevs. Hes one of the most influential philosophers to ever live, and theres SO much more in his body of work then religion.

>>8468640
I don't want to be rude or anything, but what this anon is saying is real simple to follow tbqh. A very similar thing is put forward in the movie "Batman V Superman" ffs.

>>8468748
What'd absolute cape kino have to say about this?

>>8467957
4chan is the last message boards. Message boards were the shit; much more personality than shitter or shitbook

>>8468748
I think I'm hung up on the whole existence vs. non-existence thing. And I'm dense, but that's another post

>>8468640
I thank you for taking the time to explain all this. It's quite a lot to think about.

>>8467304
can you link me the subreddit?

>>8463555
there's no such thing as atheism

or at least if you live, you have religion

File: Yeezus.jpg (126KB, 640x628px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x628px

>>8468847
https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRenaissance/top/?sort=top&t=all#page=1

http://www.strawpoll.me/11145970

>>8468949
>being agnostic
Jesus, is there anything more unsexy in the world? Just take a stand you little pussy fucks sake

>>8469035
The only people who I've seen say shit like this are autists

>>8469055
By "this" are you referring to what I said, or agnostics?

File: room1.gif (34KB, 490x756px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x756px

>>8469035
Nice meme fampai.

>>8469085
nice argument to prove me wrong, plain-ass

File: neighborhood2.png (31KB, 633x921px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 633x921px

>>8469097
I didn't say you were wrong or right; just nice meme fampai.

>>8469218
i bet your writing is highly mediocre
your personality is like third time-steeped tea (from a BAG)
my sex with your mother was only so-and-so

fight me faggot

>>8464886
>implying scientism is not intellectual cancer
t. Atheist that still hates scienautists

>>8466405
>telelogical suspend

get good

>>8463654
this

>>8463815
"fake it 'til you make it" -S.K.

File: aesthetic.jpg (129KB, 686x522px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 686x522px

>>8469249
Nah, let's just be comfy today, bully-kun.

>>8467932
>Like, he got up at six just so he could play vidya before school

i did that during the wc3:tft days. my dad was 100p fine with it because waking up at 6am to do something you're addicted to is a good habit for adulthood

File: 1468884916001.png (356KB, 572x380px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 572x380px

reply ooga booga to this post and u become god after u die who is betterer and cooler in every way than any conception of god before


(wager: better to reply to post)

>>8469665
Do not reply to this post and you will become God after you die, who is better and cooler in every way than any conception of God before (including that one).

[Wager: It is better to not reply to that post]

>>8467304
https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRenaissance/comments/4woal9/nosebleed/d68y7eu
26 days ago

>>8467949

>That guy's fallen into the trap of trying to pathologise everyone, it often happens as peeps get older.

Aren't you doing the exact same thing? I'm 27, I'm not exactly senile. And It does look like pathology to me, like cultural neurosis. The way everything must have a screen and an internet connection- from a book to a treadmill.

Look at this shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk

I don't want you little twerps to end up like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17VVwq5n-Co

Otherwise we'll have to replace you with Moslems and I don't want the cheeseburgers I get in the Old Folks Home to be vegan halal.

>>8470001
Jesus, gramps.

Those pills let me live a decent life, you know.

Also halal is objectively the coolest way to prepare your meat.

>>8465600
fucking saved lol

>>8466415
This isn't even like an ontological argument or something, one that actually would have me believe 1) that a God exists, and 2) that God is the Catholic God, etc. It's just 'it just feeeels goooood LOL'

>>8468771
The whole "if there's any chance Superman might kill us we must act as if it is an absolute" thing is a negative version of Pascal's wager.

That in the end Batman throws it in the trash may be the most atheist message in film.

>>8469950
wtf i hate 4chan now

Christians are just as dumb and conceited as Muslims.

I hope somebody nukes Jerusalem, and Mecca.

>>8471078
sir this is a literature board

>>8470096

That movie came out in 2006 when I was 16, I saw it in the theater. I thought, "Wow, so spooky! Like that'll ever happen lol!" but then it all came true:

>We're not having enough babies
>Problem with migrants
>Terrorism in good countries again after we thought it died with the Provisional IRA.
>People following strange obsessions
>Adult men with good careers smoking weed
>Britain defending itself with isolation
>world generally going to hell in a handcart
>no girl-friend

>>8468114
>infalsifiable and a valid piece of rebuttal
>and

hi /pol/

>>8463705
You can't possibly be educated about history and humanity and how religions arise and change and actually think that.

>>8471245
i agree even if you think you religion is true there is no way that it is obviously true. there is a whole world of religious views out there that evolved thousands of ways

>>8470992
True, the wager has nothing to do with proving God actually exists just that it's in your best interest to believe He does. Great observation. For that you'd need other arguments.

>>8471299
Not him, but

What's the point of the wager then?

One cannot just switch belief on and off.

>>8470001
>27
>not exactly senile
>little twerps
Wow bruh, very grown up perspective and not a man child totally.

The video of the baby is also just a baby trying to grab shit (babies have shit motor control) and some idiot as yourself reading too much into it.

>>8471405
To see that one has something to gain from certain types of belief. The idea is to open your mind to believing in God and eventually you may actually believe in God.

>>8463600
Because the Lord only accepts sincere repentance, not pragmatic egoism.

Wagerists burn in hell.

>>8471405
1. To show that it's preferable to believe than not
2. When one engages in the various rituals, what starts as simulated belief becomes real belief