Talk:Agnostic Atheism Wager

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wait-And-See Wager :

The ultimate second you are confronted with whatever Hell is the "true" version, it is still NOT TOO LATE to be saved by the RealGodTM if He is really as Good as advertised. If He is not, you're pretty much screwed anyway, but for now at least you have a free life.

Contents

[edit] Bot?

There is been blog coverage on this and stumble upon coverage of this I think the views are legit. tmtoulouse persecute 20:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Shoudl we improve it accordingly?-αmεσ (historian) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Sure - may I first suggest getting rid of the 's in the title? Move & leave redirect with a note at the redirect not to delete it? And second, I went to the site that is sort of a footnote to the wager, but couldn't find a source anywhere there. It would be nice if we could attribute its originator. humanUser talk:Human 00:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks for moving it! And I turned that "ref" into an EL. Also linked our guide for the newly de-converted. humanUser talk:Human 13:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Response

http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/a-response-to-an-agnostic-atheism-wager/ I've added this "response". It's long, wordy and attempts to sound intelligent by quoting things like "logic" and crap, but I'm afraid it misses the point of the entire thing, seeming to focus on individual wordings, pulling them out of the context of what that they actually mean and then working from there to say it's "illogical", or something. It's almost tl;dr for the most part. And the comments are interesting, particularly as they appear to go on the defensive immediately after one single comment that doesn't seem like an ad hom to me (in the strict sense, at least). As I always say, just because you know the dog latin for the main logical fallacies, it doesn't mean you know how to use them. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rigged

As rigged as Pascal's wager due to the good person + disbelieve square = heaven. What about Sola Fide? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's built into the AA Wager that a God that practices that would be an utter douche and so hell or oblivion would be preferable on moral grounds. ADK...I'll jostle your muskrat! 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't Marcus Aurelius say something like this?

I think it accompanied an edict against Christianity, but it might have been a jab at traditional religion (since he was a Stoic)... I can't find a source, though. Sake Fueled (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support