Regarding Pascal's wager: As at least one other person has said, you cannot just force yourself to believe in something. Try this: force yourself to believe in Santa Clause. Come back when you have succeeded. Furthermore, Pascal's wager only applies to, what I call, "binary" decisions. As soon as you have to choose from more than one religion it no longer applies.
It is unfortunate that we as humans get stuck on language so often. That is where most of our arguments and confusions arise it seems. The word "athiest" can mean one who BELIEVES that god does not exist (strong athiesm), or it can simply mean one who happens to not believe in god (weak athiesm). The word "agnostic" was coined to mean "without knowledge." However, nowadays an agnostic can imply that one does not know whether god exists or it can imply, more strongly, that one doesn't believe that one can know whether god exists.
What really needs to happen is that new words need to be coined to convey these alternate meanings. Of course, we still get stuck on other words such as "prove," "know," "believe," "think," even "god."
It is unfortunate that we as humans get stuck on language so often. That is where most of our arguments and confusions arise it seems. The word "athiest" can mean one who BELIEVES that god does not exist (strong athiesm), or it can simply mean one who happens to not believe in god (weak athiesm). The word "agnostic" was coined to mean "without knowledge." However, nowadays an agnostic can imply that one does not know whether god exists or it can imply, more strongly, that one doesn't believe that one can know whether god exists.
What really needs to happen is that new words need to be coined to convey these alternate meanings. Of course, we still get stuck on other words such as "prove," "know," "believe," "think," even "god."
Facebook
Twitter