Believe in God...

[Xant]

No, it's a horrible starting point. It literally makes no sense. There are so many problems with it it isn't even funny.

[Penitent]

No, it's a horrible starting point. It literally makes no sense. There are so many problems with it it isn't even funny.

There's a couple "criticisms" listed in the article you linked -- nothing detrimental to the argument that we should be thinking about our mortality and the possible consequences of it.  Unless you think I'm trying to make a point that I am not trying to make of course.  I think the article listed 2 problems with it, both minor for my purposes.  It makes perfect sense.

You may be referring to the "assumptions" listed on that page.  Many of those are misunderstanding what faith is, but I didn't read them all.

[Xant]

So why is Pascal's Wager a good starting point, then..?

[Rumblood]

You can add Philomath or FreeThinker. The original Greek definition of Gnostic is also close, but has come to imply more than simply a seeker of knowledge or the truth and so may be misinterpreted.

[Penitent]

So why is Pascal's Wager a good starting point, then..?

It's a good starting point because many people just say "I don't see proof for God, so no point believing" and they just stop there.  That makes the least sense of all.  They aren't thinking beyond what is right in front of their face (almost literally), let alone what has happened in the past, or what may happen in the future, or what may happen after they die.  What are the possibilities after death?  Do we have a finite percentage of probabilities?  What are those based on?  Does that affect how I live my life now?  Should it?  What makes the most sense?

That's just one way.  That are so so so many ways to approach this, but I present that wager in this case to get someone to think about things they can't see right now and perhaps things they haven't even thought about right now -- to expand horizons so to speak.  The train of thought they take after that, if they take any, is up to them.  Since I don't have the ability to walk through a drawn out thought process here on this forum, and don't know much about the attitude and disposition of the original poster, I figured it's a good place to start the train  -- even if its not the best.

[Radament]

seriously !? no buddhists? that's a pity !

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda02.htm

[Xant]

It's a good starting point because many people just say "I don't see proof for God, so no point believing" and they just stop there.  That makes the least sense of all.  They aren't thinking beyond what is right in front of their face (almost literally), let alone what has happened in the past, or what may happen in the future, or what may happen after they die.  What are the possibilities after death?  Do we have a finite percentage of probabilities?  What are those based on?  Does that affect how I live my life now?  Should it?  What makes the most sense?

That's just one way.  That are so so so many ways to approach this, but I present that wager in this case to get someone to think about things they can't see right now and perhaps things they haven't even thought about right now -- to expand horizons so to speak.  The train of thought they take after that, if they take any, is up to them.  Since I don't have the ability to walk through a drawn out thought process here on this forum, and don't know much about the attitude and disposition of the original poster, I figured it's a good place to start the train  -- even if its not the best.

If somebody's already an atheist, there's no reason to make them think those thoughts. They've already made the right decision. If you know your destination, you are already there.

[Tydeus]

That's why I have respect for agnostics but little patience for true atheists

It's really the same exact thing. The only difference between the two is that anyone calling themselves agnostic, is either doing so because they're hipsters and they think it makes themselves look sophisticated, or they've failed to acknowledge the evidence against the claim and the lack of such to support the claim.

They're both dumb labels that shouldn't even exist to begin with. Nowhere do we choose to label people not making scientific claims, except for when religion is involved.

[Xant]

It's really the same exact thing. The only difference between the two is that anyone calling themselves agnostic, is either doing so because they're hipsters and they think it makes themselves look sophisticated, or they've failed to acknowledge the evidence against the claim and the lack of such to support the claim.

They're both dumb labels that shouldn't even exist to begin with. Nowhere do we choose to label people not making scientific claims, except for when religion is involved.

Precisely. Some people love making a big deal over that; "I'm agnostic, atheists are soooo dumb!"

Atheism is best described as a lack of any belief that God does exist.

[Penitent]

It's really the same exact thing. The only difference between the two is that anyone calling themselves agnostic, is either doing so because they're hipsters and they think it makes themselves look sophisticated, or they've failed to acknowledge the evidence against the claim and the lack of such to support the claim.

They're both dumb labels that shouldn't even exist to begin with. Nowhere do we choose to label people not making scientific claims, except for when religion is involved.

I think they are quit different, but maybe it's just semantics. 

We do use negative labels for things other than religion all the time though!  Even science!  Like global warming deniers, or holocaust deniers.  Atheist is just a fancy word for faith denier.  Agnostic is fancy word for "admits not knowing."

[Penitent]

If somebody's already an atheist, there's no reason to make them think those thoughts. They've already made the right decision. If you know your destination, you are already there.

There is no reason to make them think those thoughts unless they asked for a reason, like OP did.

[Xant]

I think they are quit different, but maybe it's just semantics. 

We do use negative labels for things other than religion all the time though!  Even science!  Like global warming deniers, or holocaust deniers.  Atheist is just a fancy word for faith denier.  Agnostic is fancy word for "admits not knowing."

Agnostic is a fancy word for "tries to show off how hippy and humble he is."

[Penitent]

Agnostic is a fancy word for "tries to show off how hippy and humble he is."

That's absurd.  Gnostic means "knowledge" in greek.  The root of the word is "no knowledge."  You claim you know, it's the "right choice" you say.  That's another way of saying "ignorance." 

[Xant]

That's absurd.  Gnostic means "knowledge" in greek.  The root of the word is "no knowledge."  You claim you know, it's the "right choice" you say.  That's another way of saying "ignorance." 

How is it relevant in any way what gnostic means in Greek? And no, you saying you're a believer is another way of saying "delusional."

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

If I was a god I would rather sentence someone to eternal hellfire for believing in me for possible personal gain than someone who wasn't scared into believing I existed, choosing to be a good Christian because of possible reward in the afterlife is fucking pathetic, it also misses the point that there are a shitload of religions that promise you reward in heaven if you follow them, and punishment if you don't, spreading it out even thinner, in the end it's just pathetic.

It's a good starting point because many people just say "I don't see proof for God, so no point believing" and they just stop there.  That makes the least sense of all.  They aren't thinking beyond what is right in front of their face (almost literally), let alone what has happened in the past, or what may happen in the future, or what may happen after they die.  What are the possibilities after death?  Do we have a finite percentage of probabilities?  What are those based on?  Does that affect how I live my life now?  Should it?  What makes the most sense?

This entire post makes you sound like someone any selfrespecting deity would punish, religion/lack thereof should be a search for truth, not a search for reward. Abrahamic religions, specifically the Christianities, are fucking pathetic, they aren't based on trying to find truth, they aren't based on trying to do what you think is right, they're all about not searching for knowledge (hell the Adam and Eve story is basically "God wants you to be stupid"), not searching for truth, and doing what some book some shitheads wrote over a millennium ago tells them to? And why? Because it's right? Nope, because they might be rewarded. You disgust me. I would rather burn in eternal hellfire than worship something I didn't really believe in because it MIGHT be possible, and thus I MIGHT be rewarded.

BUT ANYHOW

Mork the goat god wants your money to strengthen his church, give me all your looms and gold and you'll gain eternal life in the afterlife, or whatever.