To all "atheists"
Would you sign a paper that states you`re selling your soul to me, for a 100$ for example?
I mean, you don`t lose anything and receive cash.
Or maybe there is a soul, and deep down inside you are afraid?
Bonus level: Sign it with a drop of your blood for 500$
I'd say that a human soul is worth more than $100 to someone who believes in them. I could get a much better price than that I reckon.
>implying I wouldn't kick your ass and take the money
>>28186105
as theist you should know that this is sin because soul belongs to the god.
>>28186105
Of course I'd do it, blood and all. I can even recite some satanic rituals if that make you happy.
Plus I've got the blood of a virgin, it must be pretty powerful right
I imagine people probably wouldn't because no matter how much we think that life is as it seems (without supernatural entities running around), it is human nature (or conditioning or something?) to have fears and doubts.
Like I don't believe in ghosts but I would be hesitant to stay a night in a 'haunted house'.
>>28186105
fuck off. hiadfhaweuiohfiweuhf
>>28186105
In order to sell you my soul I'd have to believe I had one and that it could be sold.
i'll do it with the blood
Yeah, I don't see why not so long as it's legally clear that you don't get it until after I die. Don't want ownership of the soul to have any possible legal implications while I'm alive.
>>28186105
I actually sold my soul on a piece of paper for a bacon double cheeseburger, so 100$ would be an upgrade for me.
>>28186105
Yes. I'd do it for 10.
Not only would souls have to exist but there'd have to be someone to enforce your ridiculous contract.
I'm surprised some crazy, rich person hasn't tried to buy people's souls en masse thinking that they'd live like a king in the afterlife.
>>28186222
>implying OP wouldn't out run your fat ass
>>28186105
Happily do both circumstances with no hesitation.
I already sold my soul for some cool pogs! Alf pogs!
Remember Alf? He's back! In pog form!
>$100
yes, free money
>sign with a drop of your own blood
Probably not, I have a strong vasovagal response when bleeding
>>28186105
I would. My souls is worthless and a human contract cannot bind it dumby. You think God is gonna be like
>oh so you accepted the lord and savior
>were a good person
>but ooo it says you signed your soul to OP
>implying collecting souls isn't a mortal sin
>implying you're no evil for this fault
Go to confession before you're too far gone, sheep
>>28186105
Sure. I'll sign it in blood. Give me that $500.
>>28186568
The best part about selling your soul is you can do it over and over and no one will be the wiser.
I'll sell my soul for $500 to the OP 20 times under 20 different names. How will he ever know?
>>28186615
Tfw when people talk about human interaction you default to online communication. Jesus christ mang, go get some air
LMAO I would do that in a heart beat. $500 for a signature and some blood, easy money baby.
>>28186105
I'm a christian and i'd do that for easy money since my devotion level is litrelly 0
kek.
>>28186105
if she let me sniff her panties I would do that for free
>>28186710
What, you think I'm going to meet up with the OP in real life to sell something that's imaginary?
Pull your head out of your ass. You have no reason to act so high and mighty when you think Noah's arc actually happened.
>>28186747
If you're a christian and you'd do that you're just dumb
An eternity of damnation and suffering for $500 isn't a good deal bro
Even if you're not very devout God can still forgive you as of now
>>28186105
>he's not a god-fearing American
lmaoing @ ur life pham
OP yes yes yes 10000x yes
How fucking fickle do you think atheists are?
And even so, our beliefs already have our soul burning for eternity in lakes of fire or whatever in the christian ideology, so our soul isnt worth much to begin with
>>28186105
I would rather be tortured to death than give up my soul.
>>28186969
Thats not even the point.
God in all his grace has blessed you with a soul. I would never even dare to appear ungrateful to my father by trading my greatest gift, especially for something as worthless as money.
I would rather burn in hell for all eternity in extreme pain, than disappointing him.
Yes to both, without hesitation
>>28187341
>didnt capitalize "Him"
enjoy damnation, heathen.
>>28186105
Not for a $100. Its forth nothing to me but since you want it, you gotta pay more. Capitalism bitch.
Is this mean to be super spooki scare tactic stuff?
"You don't believe in souls... so would you fall for the devil's tricks?! whe whe whe stopid atheists!"
Gimme the $500 senpai
>>28186105
I'd chop off my dick and use it as a pen to sign it for $1000(USD)
Lets do it with blood. Nose bleed is ok too, right? I mean blood is blood, it all carries the same DNA so it must belong to the same soul
Step 1: Give stranger 100 for selling his soul
Step 2: Repeat the other to the same stranger but under a different name/ disguise/ person
Step 3: Use ink absorbing paper, so when he tries to sign it, it's not working
Step 4: Look im right dead in the eyes and tell him he already sold his soul, cancel the offer
Step 5: Watch him going all pale n shit
>>28187857
contrived
>>28186105
Hell yeah nigga
Where's the cash?
>>28186105
If my non-existent souls is worth $500 to you, then I'd say no. You're gonna have to try lot harder than that.
Sure. Where do I sign? How much do I get for cum tributing the form?
>>28186105
Yep, where do I sign and where does the blood go?
>>28188042
Op watched that Simpson's episode
>>28186105
i also saw that episode of the simpsons, opprobably not, but that has less to do with my religious beliefs and more to do with magical thinking / autism
>>28186105
So basically this isn't for atheists at all.
Every single atheist wouldn't give a flying fuck, because there's no doubt in their minds that religions are pure fiction. The definition of atheism is that they do not believe in religions or gods, AT ALL.
You may want to respond by referring to borderline atheists, or people who believe themselves atheists, but there is no such thing. Either you are an atheist, or you're not. There is no middle ground there. If you're even the slightest bit unsure, then you're an agnostic.
I'm an agnostic for instance. But I'd still sign your shit, just not for 100 bucks. I make enough money that I simply wouldn't care to go through the trouble of all that it would take for me to get, sign, post and deliver the contract to you on the other side of the world for a mere 100 bucks.
>>28188379
Yeah, this is an exercise for agnostic cocksuckers.
>I may or may not sell you my soul if it does or doesnt exist. If it doesnt exist I'll sell it but if it does exist I claim backsies, double stampies, no erasies. Because I'm agnostic and I only believe in whatever's convenient, whether or not it exists.
>>28186105
>only $100
pls
>>28186105
Yeah. I have no money for food. I'll sell my soul with blood for $500. Can I sell my brother's soul too?
>>28188586
>>28188379
Nono, don't be like that. The OP did right in putting an insignificant reward. Most agnostics would probably jump in on the deal if the reward was tens of thousands of bucks. The question does become a lot more interesting when you make the reward so small it barely matters. Because at that point, even a slightest fucking quantum hint of doubt would be enough to refuse. You'd have to be exactly 100.00% certain that no such thing as hell exists.
It's just that for non-NEET's even 100 bucks is barely candy money. It's a bit too low.
>>28188650
>You'd have to be exactly 100.00% certain that no such thing as hell exists
Says who, fuckboy?
>>28186105
Yes I'd do it it's free money.
And for the bonus your offering me 500 dollars for a drop of my blood.
So yes I'd do either.
>>28188650
$100 is a meal for one at a five star restaurant
>>28186290
No you don't, he thinks you have one. He's just giving you free money
>Crazy person giving me money for free
Sure. Usually I'd have to convince someone to do that.
Soul yes. Blood no, that has information about me and is an actual thing that can effect my life
Why is something as abstract as the soul tradeable in a capitalist transaction? In what line of theology is the soul a purchasable entity?
Regardless of whether there's a soul or not signing a contract saying you're selling your soul wouldn't sell it.
Christian here. I would.
I don't think you can sell you soul (certainly not to another mortal), there's no mention of it in the Bible.
It's just a metaphor for commiting sin.
>>28186105
atheism doesn't imply disbelief in the concept of a soul.
The concept of the "soul" is near impossible to argue against.
>>28190614
What proof is there for having souls? We are all just collections of molecules that follow some rules that we have no control at all over. What makes you think we have a persistent soul that outlives our brains?
>>28188713
either 100.00% certain or an idiot
the agony of ENDLESS suffering trumps any material wealth any day of the week anywhere, its endless, if you are 99.999999999999999999999999999999% sure that hell doesnt exist but theres that tiny chance that it does exist, it would be stupid to choose the possibility of endless suffering over any form of material or even emotional wealth because it is not endless.
that said hell isnt real and i'd buy myself some nice looking csgo skins
>>28186105
Not an atheist and I still would
It's not actually possible to sell your soul, so it's really just money for free
>>28190614
well the way i see it your 'sould' is just a concept, it describes your conciousness, but your soul or conciousness doesnt outlive your body, it isnt higher than anything, your soul/conciousness are physical thing, when your body dies, it does too
>>28190391
It's possible and can hold value.
Imagine if you collected about 100 souls which would be a signature written on paper. You could perhaps trade souls for other menial tasks which would then contribute value to it. Thus it becomes a sort of currency thus holds meaning like federal reserve money.
>>28186105
How many souls you got senpai? Enough to buy a greatsword?
Fucking casul
As a materialist I absolutely would.
Enjoy your worthless paper. I'll enjoy my fiat currency.
>>28186374
I heard of a serial killer that believed in killing people they made them their slaves in the after life...
Think it was the Zodiac Killer.
But, OP is a faggot so whatever.
>>28186105
Of course. Let's set up a paypal agreement here. I'll even do it for $20.
>>28186105
I'd do it for free just to be edgy
>>28190679
There isn't any proof that a "soul" exists, however there isn't any proof that they do not either, therefore it must be a matter of belief.
This leads to the obvious question whether it is more reasonable to believe that they do or do not exist.
This in turn boils down to whether you want to believe in physicalism, which essentially is a radical form of empiricism, the idea that there is nothing beyond the physical, measurable. Proving physicalism must be absolutely impossible (it cannot not be provable), therefore it is more reasonable to believe that physicalism is false than believing it to be true.
Now back to the soul argument:
If there is nothing to anything but the physical, measurable component, then souls can not exist, as they are non-physical, non-measurable.
If there is something beyond the physical, measurable to anything, then souls may or may not exist.
If souls may or may not exist then this entire thing here is basically an inverse version of Pascal's Wager.
You are familiar with Pascal's Wager, right?
>>28190828
It's true, that's why you need to walk into a rich area and shoot women
>>28186105
I would kill the devil and take his place as ruler of hell.
Yeah I'll mail it to you. PayPal?
>>28186105
>inb4 this proves atheists are subhumans without morals
Woooow epic. >mfw atheists
wow cringe
>>28191043
>There isn't any proof that a "soul" exists, however there isn't any proof that they do not either, therefore it must be a matter of belief.
Just end your argument there, desu.
Just believe whatever the fuck you want and do go bothering other people about that shit, no one fucking cares if you believe you'll go to hell or not.
>But I need to s-save my brethren to get good boy points with daddy G
>But actually thinking god is real is fucking stupid, not like m-me I'm so smarty
Fuck off?!
I would try to bargain it for more, but yeah.
I also collect souls btw, its a hobby. So far i have 18.
>>28186105
sadly I am dead inside so my soul is already in afterlife.
>>28191328
>Just believe whatever the fuck you want and do go bothering other people about that shit, no one fucking cares if you believe you'll go to hell or not.
I never said any of that.
Do you have trouble thinking about things on an abstracted level?
>>28191406
Arguing wether it's "safer" or "more reasonable" to believe either is a pointless discussion. Most people will just believe whichever they were introduced to first, never really switching to the other. Making those kinds of arguments is a lost cause, but by all means go ahead, this fucking board is one of the worst places to try to discuss those kind of problems since it's mostly guys that don't like leaving their comfort zone.
Nice to actually see someone trying to sound "intellectual", though.
>>28191497
>Arguing wether it's "safer" or "more reasonable" to believe either is a pointless discussion
It isn't.
Decision theory is very real and very relevant.
>>28191516
It is.
There is no evidence proving or disproving anything. It's all baseless assumptions. It's just a 50/50 coin toss.
I choose heads.
>>28191544
>>28191544
>It's just a 50/50 coin toss
It isn't quite.
It's a 50/50 coin toss, where if you do
decide to play you are rewarded with something small. And if it shows head you get punished with an infinite punishment.
>>28191582
So it IS a 50/50 coin toss then.
50% you're correct, 50% you're wrong, is it not?
>>28186105
for 500$? Fuck yeah
>>28191612
Yes, but you do have to make the decision whether you play or not.
Which is exactly this "is it more reasonable to believe or not to believe" question.
>>28191043
>>28190614
Wrong. Atheism is the absolute opposite of theism. There is no room at all, for "belief" in supernatural concepts like religion, or the soul. Your opinion in this is irrelevant. If you feel that way, you're an agnostic. Period. Atheism by definition, does not believe. He follows proof.
The fact that the world has millions of fedora-topped douche bags who believe their wanton fantasies and opinions and still try to claim they're atheists doesn't change this. Those people are just misusing the term, just like you are.
>There isn't any proof that a "soul" exists, however there isn't any proof that they do not either, therefore it must be a matter of belief.
This whole fucking sentence is exactly what religious people say about religions. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" and all that. Science or by extension atheism doesn't work that way. If you can't prove something, it becomes irrelevant, which basically leads you to Occam's Razor: If you can't prove something, and its existence or absence would both lead to the same outcome, then why bother with the extra step and complexity when the simpler explanation is far more likely to be correct. Therefore, God, soul, etc are just dumbass imaginary concepts that are entirely unnecessary, and as such, we will assume they don't exist at all.
But well trolled, 8/10 and all that.
I'd do it for 20 bucks desu
>>28186105
500 bucks is a lot of beer so yeah I'll sell my soul to you
>>28191639
That goes back to my point, you will probably never ever convince anyone to stop putting everything in their 50% no matter what. That is what I meant to it being an useless discussion.
>>28191643
>Atheism by definition, does not believe. He follows proof.
No.
What you are describing is an empiricist.
>"Absence of proof is not proof of absence"
That is absolutely true.
In science you construct experiments trying to disprove your theory, not the other way around.
>Occam's Razor
This idea is insanely fallacious, please go away.
>then why bother with the extra step and complexity when the simpler explanation is far more likely to be correct
I got a good one.
Ever heard of the phlogiston theory?
It's beautiful, and incredibly simple, far simpler than any of this thermodynamics, redox reaction bullshit. Why aren't we accepting this to be true?
Hell, why do we even believe that everything is made up of tiny clusters of balls with a relatively ridiculous distance inbetween them?
That's anything but simple or elegant, is it?
I don't think you understand science very well, really.
Science, or rather "applied empiricism", is not about finding absolute truth, it never was, that's the domain of pure philosophy.
Science tries to model reality in a way that can predict it. It's not absurdly rigorous like Mathematics, or abstracted like Philosophy.
>>28191669
Yes, but at that point people are being irrational.
Atheists still exist, despite the ridiculously suffocating argument that is Pascal's Wager.
Sure, you can turn it around and claim that all the faiths are the "true faith", but that's not very convincing.
Since not everyone who claims to be in the possession of the singular truth can have found the singular truth, otherwise it cannot not be, must not be a singular truth or all the truths are different expressions of the same truth.
In either situation Pascal's Wager still works as argument in favor of believing.
Atheism is absolutely irrational and so is playing this coin game.
>>28190679
Some faggots put a dying person on an extremely sensitive scale, in an air bubble, to see if the weight of the whole system changed when they died.
There was a change, far above the scale's error.
So, the existence of a soul has been proved, or otherwise consciousness has mass, which alone would be pretty fucking interesting.
>>28186105
Yeah where do I sign?
>>28191920
>Pascal's Wager
There are hundreds of religions, each claiming that they are the one true religion, and you will be damned to their version of hell if you follow a different religion/god. Ultimately, Pascal's Wager is irrelevant, because there is absolutely no way to rationally decide which religion to follow, so your chances of burning forever are just as high if you pick religion X, Y, or Z.
>>28192086
I addressed this, read please.
>>28186105
Yeah, I mean even if a soul does exist I'm sure it would take more than a piece of paper to lose it.
>>28186105
Of course I would sign, and if you have a sterile needle I'll prick my finger.
What kind of cuck wouldn't sign?
>>28191920
>Since not everyone who claims to be in the possession of the singular truth can have found the singular truth, otherwise it cannot not be, must not be a singular truth or all the truths are different expressions of the same truth.
>In either situation Pascal's Wager still works as argument in favor of believing.
Not it doesn't.
>>28192110
No you didn't.
>>28186105
$100? Really? Come on, anon. What am I, running a charity over here? Do I look like the fucking Discount Soul Warehouse?
$100 a day. Every day. For the next 5 years. After all, this is supposed to be a thing of extreme value, one not easily obtained. I'm supposed to be paying dearly, so you should also.
>>28192203
The probability of a favorable outcome is still significantly higher if you believe in any religion than if you do not, since we are dealing with infinites here.
>>28192277
No. What if god only gives paradise to non-believers? What if you choose wrong faith and god is pissed and tortures you forever?
You have no information on what faith if any is true and how this hypothetical after life will judge your choice.
>>28186105
No because I don't allow people to claim ownership of any part of me, even if it's fake.
I wouldn't even do it in a D&D Campaign
>>28191920
>"Atheism by definition, does not believe. He follows proof."
>No.
Wrong:
>The soul is the name given to the supposed immaterial part of an individual that can exist separately from the body.
>Although it is not recognized by science because it is both non-falsifiable and supernatural, it is an important aspect of much religious thought.
>"Occam's Razor"
>This idea is insanely fallacious, please go away.
You're right, I should stop using what is clearly too complex a concept and is constantly being misinterpreted by people. Occam's Razor is extremely easy to grasp, unless you're an autist. In which case you - and this is very common on 4chan I must admit - will automatically jump to any and all conclusions implied or permitted by purposefully misunderstanding the underlying idea of Occam's Razor. Rendering it useless as a tool.
Let me elaborate by using your own words as an example:
>Ever heard of the phlogiston theory?
>It's beautiful, and incredibly simple, far simpler than any of this thermodynamics, redox reaction bullshit. Why aren't we accepting this to be true?
I'm guessing you just googled this concept and didn't exactly read things through, yes? The very reason the phlogiston theory was ultimately considered debunked was precisely because it was NOT a simple explanation. As further evidence presented itself mainly due to heated and oxidized metals gaining mass instead of losing it as proposed by this theory, the phlogiston theory had to jump to an ever increasing number of assumptions to remain functional. It became not simple, but needlessly complex by comparison, and as such, Occam's Razor applies.
>>28186105
Last time I checked atheism is the belief that there's no god, not that there's no soul.
Heeeeeeeeell to the yeah. I wear a fucking goat head and paint a fucking pentagram with my own blood for 10k
>>28192514
If you don't believe in god but believe in souls I'm not sure why you wouldn't sign since it's an unenforceable contract absent some diety.
>>28192539
satan isn't a god though, so you are still selling your soul to an entity.
>>28192561
How isn't satan a god in more general terms?
If I believed in the supernatural being satan I wouldn't call myself an atheist.
>>28186105
Yes
I want more though, at least 200 for normal contract and 1000 for the blood spill
>>28192489
>cont...
>Science, or rather "applied empiricism", is not about finding absolute truth, it never was, that's the domain of pure philosophy.
The age of philosophy as a tool to explain reality was over some 80 years ago. It's become a fringe subject, completely subservient to science in anything that has to do with explaining the nature of reality and natural phenomenon. So that's irrelevant.
And you again demonstrated your edgy purposeful (or not, not sure anymore) misunderstanding of these concepts with that comment about science. To reiterate:
>Science, or rather "applied empiricism", is not about finding absolute truth, it never was
Wrong. And I know this'll get some hairs standing. But yes, this is wrong.
The scientific method, at its core, is a tool that does indeed attempt to find the closest thing to an absolute proof that is possible for us to find, and verify to be true. It's just that it's not a fanatical tool like religions.
The scientific method works by steps, and by admitting faults. By necessity of our own thus far limited understanding, science builds itself upon theories that work as "the best explanation that can be repeatedly verified and tested to be most the accurate thus far". But its end goal is to go as far as one can go.
In layman's terms, the scientific method explains how one would go from stone age to building airplanes and beyond: By taking those baby steps, as necessary.
Of course I would do that you moron.
Even if you're mentally retarded enough to believe that your mind becomes an immortal ghost after you die, why do you think the laws of that fairytale scenario would be governed by a piece of paper? Are you a child?
>>28186105
As long as there is no legal backlash for doing it then sure.
>>28192598
He isn't omniscient nor omnipotent nor immortal, thus he isn't what gods are always described to be.
You can still believe in the "supernatural" or rather something that hasn't been explained yet, what atheists don't believe in are gods or that a god(s) created humans and actively watch us masturbating.
>>28187857
Lol.
O
r
IG
i
NAL
STILL NOT ORIGINAL
>>28186105
would sign with blood, but nobody is actually dumb enough to pay for that, right? right? anyone?
>>28192933
>He isn't omniscient nor omnipotent nor immortal, thus he isn't what gods are always described to be.
You must not read about many gods.
>>28191920
I am God, if you deny that I am God then I will smite you tomorrow morning. Based on pascal's wager it would be rational for you to believe I am God and accept that I am God. So, do accept that I am God?
>>28192658
...cont
>In layman's terms, the scientific method explains how one would go from stone age to building airplanes and beyond: By taking those baby steps, as necessary.
Following this same example, religion would be the thing that wouldn't tell you how to go anywhere at all, and would instead just use fantastical bullshit and children's stories to tell you to stay exactly where you are: In stone age.
Philosophists on the other hand would come up with wild and random theories of everything they could imagine back on stone age, and then fabricate whatever stories they could in order to fit the then-known picture of reality, to explain how those stories of theirs must be true. One of them might stumble upon airplanes, yes, but besides that one guess, not a lot else in his story would have anything at all to do with reality.
In simpler terms:
1. Science follows proof to whatever conclusion, unbiased.
2. Philosophy invents conclusions first (without any proof), and then tries to reason how and which steps would be necessary to arrive to that conclusion.
3. Religion just rams whatever random BS it wants down your throat, making up its own stories, and making up vague answers to the problems it made up itself in the first place.
>>28192378
Your argument boils down to "you do not know", which is really neat and all, but you don't have the luxury of not playing like with the coin game.
You still very much must choose.
I think I just need to repeat myself:
An infinite reward is infinitely more desirable than any other reward and an infinite punishment is infinitely more undesirable than anything else.
Therefore whatever you do, if you are acting rationally, you are going to try reaching the state that is more desirable.
This state here being the state, that according to your knowledge, will offer an infinite reward.
Following any religion, is certainly more likely to grant you this infinite reward, than not following any religion.
It doesn't matter which one, not really.
Following any one of them is more likely to grant you this infinite reward you desire and more likely to let you avoid the infinite punishment.
>>28192489
>wrong
Science doesn't need the soul to model the world, Occam's Razor and all that, right?
>it is an important aspect of much religious thought
Irrelevant, the soul as concept can exist independently of religious thought.
>I'm guessing you just googled this concept and didn't exactly read things through
No, I was only passingly familiar with it and I figured it's good enough for the purpose of the argument.
Why didn't you address what I said about atoms?
>>28192658
>The age of philosophy as a tool to explain reality was over some 80 years ago.
The purpose of philosophy was explaining beyond what can be addressed empirically, that which cannot be seen, not measured, among many, many other things?
>completely subservient to science
I don't think you even understand what Philosophy is or how far it goes.
All science is philosophy, where do you think the scientific method came from?
Mathematics is pure philosophy, where do you think this ridiculous rigor of deriving everything from self-evident truths came from? It's just logic, all of it.
1/2
>The scientific method, at its core, is a tool that does indeed attempt to find the closest thing to an absolute proof that is possible for us to find
Here we must distinguish between three things:
Science as conducted by the people, which is faulty and fueled by self-interest.
Science as tool to explain the world, which is pathetic as it ends up insanely lacking in rigor and is just ends up as a vague model that kinda works, but is close to falling apart so it needs to be fixed with near-non-provable conjectures constantly.
Science as tool to find truth, which is faulty as it is limited by empiricism.
>It's just that it's not a fanatical tool like religions.
But it is, it boils down to "what I can't see doesn't exist", this is insanely zealous.
This is far worse than what religion does, isn't it?
By the way, when I say religion, I do not refer to the institutions standing behind the religions, just the pure thoughts themselves.
>In layman's terms, the scientific method explains how one would go from stone age to building airplanes and beyond: By taking those baby steps, as necessary.
That analogy is absolutely terrible.
>>28192979
>1. Science follows proof to whatever conclusion, unbiased.
Empiricists make up something they want to be true, then they "prove" it by looking at stuff and collectively saying "My/Our observation is infallible therefore what I/we see must be true", if you don't notice the issue with that one, I really can't help you.
>2. Philosophy invents conclusions first (without any proof), and then tries to reason how and which steps would be necessary to arrive to that conclusion.
Yes, fundamentally correct.
However the reasoning in philosophy (and mathematics, which operates the same way) is insanely rigorous, you can trace it all down to truths that simply must be true.
2/2
>>28186222
>implying you wouldn't slice him in two with your katana.
>>28193151
>You still very much must choose.
I know.
>Following any religion, is certainly more likely to grant you this infinite reward, than not following any religion.
This is where your argument falls apart. Why is following a religion more likely to give an infinite reward?
>>28192086
>why have 1/100 odds of heaven when you could pick none and have 0% chance
Ok thanks
>>28193545
>implying hypothetical true faith doesn't only allow atheists into paradise
If you think Pascal's Wager is convincing you are presupposing things about the structure of the true faith.
>>28186105
whats your address man and i want my 500 done by bank transfer, along with a contract stating that you will pay me 500 on the collection of my "soul" and blood. just to make sure you dont skimp out on me
>>28193171
>>28193545
You can just look at Pascal's own objection to this critique where he basically just gave his own faith, a flavor of Christianity, precedence over the countless other faiths in the world.
>gave my philosophy professor in college a contract staying that I would give him possession of my soul if I failed to complete an already-late paper by a certain date
>he laughed and signed it
>never wrote the paper
>got an F in the class
>soon thereafter, dropped out of college altogether
>that was a year ago
>mfw I just remembered I lost my soul
FUCK
>>28193545
What if Neckbeard God is real, and if you believe in religion you go to hell and if you're an atheist you get salvation. What then, smart guy?
>>28186105
Pascal's Wager is the WORST argument for god ever. Even if there's a god it probably wouldn't be the christian god. Also what magic powers do you have that would even allow you to use a soul? Christianity doesn't give humans supernatural power
>>28193260
>Why is following a religion more likely to give an infinite reward?
Why would it not?
As far as you know the religions have no reason to lie to you, they all genuinely believe that they have the truth.
>>28193606
This is the only worthwhile argument against Pascal's Wager.
>>28193802
I know, but it is irrelevant.
>>28194030
It's an unbeatable argument in favor of faith, but it doesn't argue for God.
>>28186105
sure
easy money
>>28194101
>Why would it not?
Because you're just as likely to be punished infinitely for your faith as you are to be rewarded infinitely. Given we have no knowledge about this supposed true god's whims and how he judges us how can you make the claim that faith improves your odds?
>>28194101
most of the time you'd still get punished for worshipping the wrong god
>>28194101
>It's an unbeatable argument in favor of faith
If you "believe" something because if you're wrong you might get set on fire by santa claus, you don't have faith. You're just gambling. If god will send you to hell for not believing he exists, he'll surely send you to hell for being a shrewd gambler.
Also what magic powers do you have that would even allow you to take my soul? Where in the bible is anything of that nature even discussed. I don't remember ANYONE selling their soul
>>28186105
Yeah, but I would pretend to be hesitant and scared and make you give more money.
Make it $400 and you've got a deal.
even if we had souls, the likliness of OP being able to render and use my soul is like zilch. so hell yeah, i'd sign with blood too.
I could just buy another soul for 500 give me the cash
>>28195272
Totally missed the last part, now I feel retarded.
>>28186105
well if you`re giving it value im gonna have to ask for more than that desu
>>28186105
Sure. Like you said, I can't lose something that doesn't exist.
Even if souls and the divine do exist I'm sure no omniscient being beyond our comprehension would care enough to actually transfer my soul to your possession or even acknowledge a few ink scratches made on a dead tree by some irrelevant apes
>>28186105
Yes. Money now please.
>>28186105
I would do that for a pizza
ill sell you my soul for a pound of high grade cannabis
>>28187857
Damn, this is fucking genius.
lol who cares
just live you life, don't be a cunt and people will (surprisingly) treat you alright
eat your 5 a day too
>all these greedy motherfuckers
Free money just isn't enough for you anymore, isn't it?
I bet you're kidding but I will actually do this email me [email protected]
>>28186105
Nah.
Like, I don't really believe in it, but $100 isn't worth the chance that I might be wrong.
>bought oneitus's soul for a quarter in middle school
Not worth it desu
>>28186105
Why would I sell it? Even if it were real, selling it would mean giving it up at some point. I don't want to die.
If I wanted money i'd have a job, $100 is worth nearly nothing to me, not worth the 0.1% chance.
>>28186105
Where do I sign senpai
