If you've only heard of Roko's Basilisk in passing, you might not be in a position to fully understand just how absurd the whole concept is.
Roko's Basilisk isn't an evil omnipotent supercomputer putting you in the torment nexus.
It's an otherwise-benevolent omnipotent supercomputer in the future, probably long after your death, putting a simulation of you in the torment nexus if and only if it determines that you 1. cared about creating an omnibenevolent omnipotent supercomputer, and 2. didn't do enough in the present to help it come into existence faster. This is meant to "blackmail" you doing more to help it, somehow (getting that to make sense is a whole other can of worms). How is it able to create a detailed-enough simulation that it "counts as actually you", even though all it has is geneology records and maybe some surviving social media shitposts? ... No further questions.
So basically it's just Techbro Pascal's Wager, but way dumber.
I lose all respect for a Christian using Pascal's wager. To believe in GOD only out of fear isn't belief. Christians should love GOD without the threat of punishment. Also you could apply that argument to literally every religion and we're back to square one.
Thinking about the fatalism that has inevitably emerged after yesterday's events, and how angry it makes me. Nothing about Trump has changed a goddamn iota since somebody tried to kill him. He's still the same old shitstain who's intent on tearing down the rest of this country he didn't get to last time.
The best way to legally depress voter turnout is to make people feel like there's no point in voting. When people turn out in numbers, Democrats tend to win.
And there still is a fucking point. I know it doesn't really make as much news as it should, but a Biden administration has genuinely made people's lives better. None of it gets publicized well because it's not sexy, but not being able to report medical debt to credit bureaus? $35 insulin? Cracking down on robocalls? The climate stuff in the giant infrastructure bill? All of this is important quality of life shit.
Certainly nothing is at the level it should be, but some of us old farts have stories about how much worse it was before, and why we would absolutely not go back. And I'm real fucking sorry that change isn't happening at the rate any of us want, but it's not nothing.
In philosophy, there is a concept called Pascal's Wager, which says a rational person should believe in God because the rewards are amazing if God exists, and the losses are small if God doesnt.
Obviously voting still takes effort, but I think it's effort that won't be wasted regardless of the outcome. Now you know what to do for next time! You've learned a little about your local politicians! For the states where you have to vote in person, it's a little more inconvenient, but check if early voting is available in your area.
And if (god forbid) the worst happens, you still tried. You didn't take it as a given he would win. Brazil has mandatory voting, and despite having the button RIGHT FUCKING THERE between Bolsonaro and Lula, more people chose to opt out than do the thing that would have an actual effect. That's so fucked up.
I know that people get frustrated and vote for things that represent their feelings as opposed to actual rational consequences. And this literally kills people.
I don't think it's too much to expect people to put in a bit of time and effort into something that will yield such important results if it's successful. If you need help registering to vote or a ride to the polls, it is available.
Why Pascal's Wager isn't a good reason to be a Christian
First, let's define what Pascal's Wager is for anyone who's unfamiliar with the term. After all, while most people have heard it before, the official name for the argument isn't as famous as the argument itself.
It basically boils down to this: You should believe in God because if you do and God exists you'll be either infinitely rewarded or you'll lose nothing, whereas if you don't you'll be infinitely punished if he does exist.
Or, as a visual:
The Problems:
a) Those aren't the only options.
Other religions beyond Christianity exist, and many of them have their own requirements for avoiding a bad afterlife.
So you could choose to believe in the Christian God and fail to fulfill the requirements for a good afterlife of the real true religion (whatever it might be) and then you're in the same boat as every atheist.
b) You do lose stuff when living a Christian life.
At the bare minimum, you lose years to spending time in church worshipping, as well as lose money tithing. But you could also lose friendships, relationships, and much more depending on where life takes you and how religious you are.
Debates about the existence of deities have shaped philosophy, science, and culture for centuries. While theism remains prevalent worldwide,
Published: May 23, 2025
Arguments Against God’s Existence: Key Philosophical Debates
Debates about the existence of deities have shaped philosophy, science, and culture for centuries. While theism remains prevalent worldwide, a growing number of individuals find the case for atheism—disbelief in gods—compelling. This article explores the major philosophical arguments atheists use to contend that no deities exist, breaking down key debates and examining why many find atheism convincing. For further reading, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Cosmological Argument and Its Critiques
The cosmological argument posits that everything that exists has a cause, and that this chain of causation must ultimately lead to a first cause—often identified as God. Proponents argue that the universe’s existence requires an explanation beyond itself. However, atheists challenge this argument on several grounds:
Special Pleading: If everything requires a cause, why is God exempt? This exception appears arbitrary.
Infinite Regress: Some philosophers argue that an infinite regress of causes is not logically impossible, undermining the need for a first cause.
Alternative Explanations: Modern cosmology offers naturalistic explanations for the universe’s origins, such as quantum fluctuations, that do not require a deity.
For a deeper dive, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Cosmological Argument.
The Problem of Evil
One of the most influential arguments against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity is the problem of evil. If such a god exists, why does unnecessary suffering occur? Atheists and many philosophers argue that the existence of gratuitous evil is incompatible with the traditional concept of God. Key points include:
Logical Problem: The existence of evil appears logically inconsistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Evidential Problem: The sheer amount and variety of suffering in the world make the existence of a benevolent god unlikely.
Theodicies: While some theists propose justifications (theodicies) for evil, such as free will or soul-making, critics argue these do not account for natural disasters or seemingly pointless suffering.
For more, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Evil.
Pascal’s Wager and Its Limitations
Pascal’s Wager suggests that believing in God is the safest bet: if God exists, believers gain everything; if not, they lose nothing. Atheists and critics highlight several flaws in this reasoning:
False Dichotomy: The wager assumes only the Christian God is possible, ignoring the multitude of deities humans have believed in.
Belief as a Choice: Genuine belief cannot be willed simply for pragmatic reasons; belief is not a mere wager.
Ethical Concerns: The wager encourages belief based on self-interest rather than evidence or sincerity.
For a critical analysis, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Pascal’s Wager.
Arguments from Lack of Evidence
Many atheists argue that the absence of compelling evidence for any deity is itself a strong reason for disbelief. This position is often summarized as: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Key aspects include:
Burden of Proof: The burden lies with those making the claim (i.e., that a god exists), not with skeptics.
Analogy to Other Claims: Just as we do not believe in unicorns or fairies without evidence, atheists see no reason to believe in gods without proof.
Empirical Standards: Scientific and philosophical standards demand evidence before accepting extraordinary claims.
For more on this approach, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Atheism and Agnosticism.
Arguments from Logical Contradictions
Some atheists contend that the concept of God, as defined by many religions, is logically incoherent. Examples include:
Omnipotence Paradox: Can an all-powerful being create a stone so heavy that even it cannot lift it? If yes, then there is something it cannot do; if no, then it is not all-powerful.
Omniscience vs. Free Will: If God knows everything, including future human actions, how can humans have free will?
Incompatible Properties: Attributes like omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience may be mutually incompatible when examined closely.
For further reading, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Omnipotence Paradox.
Why Many Find the Case for Atheism Convincing
Atheism’s appeal often lies in its commitment to reason, evidence, and intellectual honesty. Many find that the arguments for theism do not withstand critical scrutiny, while the arguments against the existence of deities are robust and multifaceted. The willingness to question deeply held beliefs and demand evidence is seen as a virtue by many atheists and secular thinkers.
For those interested in exploring these debates further, reputable resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy offer comprehensive overviews and in-depth analyses. The philosophical conversation continues to evolve, inviting all to engage with the evidence and arguments on their own terms.
==
Faith and evidence are opposites. You only need faith not only in spite of a lack of evidence, but because there is no evidence. Or more precisely, because there can be no evidence.
If they had evidence, they wouldn't need faith. If faith was any good, they wouldn't need to pretend they had evidence.
“Kneel, just in case,”
as if fear were grace in disguise.
As if trembling hands
could tip the scales
of a god too clean to trace.
They said: “Believe,
you have nothing to lose.”
But I do.
I lose the days I might have lived unafraid,
the questions I might have dared to ask,
the wonder that bursts from an honest doubt,
the quiet rebellion of an open mind.
A bet without a table, a dealer, a game,
is just a voice in the dark wagering against silence.
If I must gamble,
let it be on stars,
on rivers cutting stone,
on kindness born for no reason at all.
Not on the whisper of a king
too proud to show his face.
I HATE the idea of Pascal's Wager so so much and i hate it as a reason why people should convert to christianity
I truly do believe that if you genuinely think and use Pascal's Wager as a good reason that people should convert to christianity, then you need yo reconsider what you believe and what believing actually means to you
(Ramble under the cut)
----
For those who don't know what it is: Pascal's Wager is basically the thinking that you should be a christian, because if God isn't real then you wouldn't have lost anything, but if God does end up being real, then you will go to heaven and not being a christian would mean going to hell so you should be a christian just to play it safe.
I find this so frustrating, i found it frustrating as well when i was 13 and i first heard of it.
Because saying you believe something is NOT the same as actually believing it, just like saying you love someone but you don't actually love them.
For the person you told that you love them, they might be tricked by you, they will be happy with you, but if God does exist, he will know that you didn't actually believe and he will know. I doupt God would accept someone who didn't actually believe but did it all as a fluke or a lie, because that is what it actually is, and in God's eyes, lying is a sin
You can't "believe" just in case, belief goes so so so much deeper than that. You can pretend all you want to be a christian and to believe but if you don't actually believe, it is not the same thing, believe me, i would know
Pascal's wager holds no grounds and makes no sense because it stands on the basis of doing something half heartedly just to play it safe, which is not the same as the true belief and faith, the work and dedication it takes to become a true christian
I see a lot of posts abiut this just talking about how it means you should be polytheist or whatever but im surprised how i haven't seen a single thing searching it up about what believing actually is
I hate this idea so much, and my older sister constantly likes to bring it up all the time in discussions about athiests or belief, and while i do not have the courage to ever say it out loud to her,
If you do think this, then i genuinely think that you HAVE to look at what believing looks like to you, and think about your relationship with God and your belief in him and how genuine it actually is
