This is such a wonderful video. I came into this not knowing what Pascal's wager was and left with a greater understanding of the world and an even greater understanding of my own religion.
You came into this not knowing what Pascal's wager was, and left not knowing what Pascal's wager was. Most of his objections are refuted by the part of Pascal's wager that he left out.
@Darlene Griffith The part at the very end of his wager. When he says "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." Behaving as if God exists makes your life better. So there's no loss even if God turns out to not exist.
@@imom007 I was thinking Michael Corleone. The Our Father. Tony however would be the patron saint of Newark and those who never had the makings of a varsity athlete
A Hindu man has died and was granted access to Nirvana. He is instructed to go to 4th door on the right, passing the doors to Valhalla, Elusium and one door that he is told, when passing by, he must be extremely quiet and stealthy. "Why?" asks the man. "That's Christian Heaven. And they think they're the only ones here."
u respect ur mom, because u came from her. You obey her rules, because you live in her house. Same with God, we obey God because we are his creation on his Earth.
@@jaytheking1782But that fails, because : you can always see your mom and expirience her, not god. And if you disobey her, she doesnt throw you into an eternal torture camp, and if she did, she would definitely lose you to authorities
I had a boss who inappropriately tried to bully me "back to Christ" many years back. She stopped after my response of "Are you telling me your god doesn't know your heart? Because no matter what my words profess in my heart I will never believe in the god you are speaking of." It was a toxic and bad work environment but it did help me grow in my own comfort of faith. As an atheist friend and I once concluded after a discussion of the afterlife (existence or non) the suckiest thing is we won't know until we die. So for me that means this is my domain and it is up to me to make the world better by my presence she happens to feel the same. The afterlife is something one either will or will not get (I do believe in one but who knows that could be all in my head) so the only measure of a person's life is their actions during it. I don't need the fear of eternal doom to be a better person indeed during my youth when I only knew Christianity I at times felt the doom of hell was preferable to the living hell I was experiencing especially as I lay in bed for days immobilized by pain.
@@taylorfusher2997 Mermaids were nor part of Norse folklore before the larger scale christianisation and western European influence after the yeae 1000. It seems some, especially in the Atlantic Islands, believed in selkies though. Anyway I suppose you're free to launch whatever unconvincing "gotcha" argument you've been trying to pull in most comments now?
well that's the thing. you have to go against your own heart in order to be "saved". according to the abrahamic faiths people are influenced by demonic spirits that can control their desires including the desire to sin, the desire to believe in multiple gods or the desire to believe such things just don't exist.
2 vlog brothers quotes stick out to me on this topic. Ones older, and basically said preferably our goal in life should be to 'decrease world suck levels' where possible. More recently on their podcast they were discussing climate doomerism, I'm sure you're familiar with, being on the internet, that eventually the earth will be completely uninhabitable by humans etc etc. Hank was saying to this 'congrats, you figured it out, but that was always going to be the case. The sun will eventually expand enough to wipe the planet out completely yadda yadda. But we don't live there. We live here, and now, with people who's lives we can make better.' Basically the same sentiments, over a decade apart, but both have really stuck with me on a better way to live your life than being good because of an alleged reward. Regardless of what happens when we die, we don't live there. We live here. So I'm gonna make some people happy before I go.
I think the "multiple Gods" objection is really just a particular version of the "you haven't actually told me how to guarantee entrance" objection. It's like a wager where you don't actually know if you've placed the bet or not!
One of the oldest statues on Europe is small wooden man with the head of a lion. Does that mean that there were once were-lions roaming Europe? Or is it only a representation of the collective imagination? People create things that doesn't exist, what is more plausible: Literally fish people with no fossil evidence, photos, etc. Simply the collective imagination that passed from culture to culture?
Pascal's Wager always felt like it was both using the stick & the carrot to pursuade. The carrot being heaven, & the stick being damnation--both are eternal. But really, it's about fear & avoiding hell so you hedge your bets "just in case." So much of Christianity seemed fear based to me & they definitely used fear as a stick to demand obedience & compliance to authoritarian rules.
I think it depends on the sect. There are some Christian groups that are absolutely fear based. There are others that are much more relaxed and tend to believe that people go to heaven so long as they were a good person.
10:25 THANK YOU for expressing this: that unchanging eternity, for some, would be torture. Long story short, as a little kid, growing up Catholic, I developed deep existential anxiety about this very thing. I spent most of my life worried not about Hell at all, but the grim dichotomy between Eternity and Oblivion. I haven't heard anyone else even TALK about this idea before, much less understand it. Again, thank you, thank you.
@@OceanKeltoi I’d always wondered “if no one is ever sad in heaven, would I be forced to be happy? Those I would miss because they went to hell (or as I was taught, ceased to exist) be wiped from my memory, to keep me from being sad? Would I have fake copies of them ? It always seemed so…. Wrong.
As an atheist, I think you're super entertaining. Just stumbled on you via algorithm, and this was a really cool video. Good work, and please keep making this shit. Very edifying!
@12:22 Plato's Appology - Socrates has a similar view. Either the gods (the Greek ones in this case) exist, in which case Socrates will go about the standard Grecian afterlife, or they don't, in which case it will simple be an eternal dreamless sleep. I find it a strangly calming thought.
that brief description of heaven as one of the halls of the land of the dead perfectly captures my personal thoughts on heaven as a concept. in short, an eldritch horror.
I could go along with one that has just a chill deathgod , or more, and jusr hanging out, with damnation nit be infinite and for the worst of the worse only, not as threat. Just the differwnce of hel really being chill and caring makes a lot of differwnce. Not saying christians cant be that just zhe fear of hell, yeah. Is common. Like there is a difference that you will be judged abd fear afterlife, and if yiu are ded, you are ded, and there is another afterlife, but the average is fine.
Many years ago I was dying & awaiting a heart transplant. I considered myself a Christian at the time and had a lot of people praying for me. Many said they "knew" I would be ok. God told them. I didn't know that. He declined to reassure me. My heart was getting worse daily and all I could hope for was a surgery that was a 50/50 shot I would even come out alive (back in the 1990s). The only way I could face death was, like Ciscero wrote, that should I die, I wouldn't know it. That was all the comfort I really had; my faith got me no where when facing my last months of life. (I guess you could say my deconversion story started there). (Obviously I was fortunate enough to get a transplant and to do well). Great video!
Something that always rubbed me wrong about the Christian heaven was that I always felt like I had to barter my life on this world in order to gain access. I had to live a certain way, do certain things, even if at times it felt off or rubbed me the wrong way. I find it difficult to disagree with any of your points here. Polytheism seems to make the prospect of both life and death all the more beautiful to me. In life, I can make my own way and become a better person for it. As for death, maybe there is no longer any need to fear the unknown. Something like that anyway. Another great video Ocean!
That’s not the case but assuming it were, would you really abandon infinite reward in favor of short term selfish satisfaction? That’s obviously foolish
These philosophy videos are so on point. I am really enjoying how you are able to weave Polytheistic and Heathen religion into a conversation where often times the only religious argument is between Western Christian belief and atheism. They really strengthen the path many of us are sometimes taking uneasy steps upon. Thank you for that. I actually struggle with the concept of an afterlife. Not because I fear boredom as I believe that the passage of time will work WAY differently in that situation, and not because I worry about oblivion as I am fine with that if there is no alternative. My weird concern is the personal connectivity of people in this life. That is to say, is one STUCK where they go even if it is not a place of punishment? My wife is Christian. Not a particularly devout one, but she is certainly not a Heathen. Does she have to go to Christian heaven with a bunch of angels that won't stop singing for 5 minutes about how awesome God is while I soak up some eternal summer in Hel since I'm pretty sure I won't make the line-cut list of Odin/Thor/Freyja etc? What about my Muslim and Hindu friends? Is the afterlife a series of Halls where there is a celestial water cooler where different faiths can hang out around and shoot the shit? As far as Pascal's wager goes, I have always viewed it as a cheap ploy that misses the point of what faith is about. Faith shouldn't be a mathematically leaning postulation where your options are: I wasted a little time, I wasted no time, this is Awesome, I'm burning for eternity. It sorta flies in the face of moving mountains with faith the size of a mustard seed and all that. You either believe the proclamations of Christianity or you don't. Giving me math homework isn't going to sway me, though.
The idea was first introduced to me in the context that this was Pascal making a joke, I don't know if it's true but it was a surprise when I realised this is an argument people take seriously
I was raised Lutheran and came up with my own version of Pascal's wager when I was a kid, and came to the conclusion that if God was all knowing, he would know that was the reason and it wouldn't matter anyway. That's part of what started my journey away from Christianity. I was actually petty surprised when I learned about it years later in my intro to philosophy class in college. And yeah, the only version of the many gods objection I'd heard before exploring polytheism (including from some bigger atheist RUclips channels) was the multiple copies of heaven and hell which, as you said, isn't really applicable. Besides, even as a Christian, hell always seemed to be where all the fun people go. Heaven never really seemed like a reward to me.
I was raised catholic and oddly had a very similar experience. I got by for a while convincing myself I didn't care if I went to heaven but would serve the Christian God anyway, but eventually I actually stopped caring and then well what was the point after that? I started asking tough questions and now I'm here
"hell always seemed to be where all the fun people go" King Radboud of Frisia, after a Christian priest tried to convert him to Christianity, famously said "I would rather live in Hell with my ancestors than alone in Heaven" Very based
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
NO it is not. It is a gaslighting technique to keep followers. Apologetics are not built around convincing non believers. It's to give believers something to cling to.
I’ve always seen the afterlife as a place of rest within our soul’s journey, we can relax, meet old friends, our ancestors, celebrate, make merry (as long as you didn’t piss off the gods enough to be yeeted into Tartarus) before we’re ready for our next journey, maybe another life, maybe as a spirit, idk
What do you think about the idea of reincarnation as opposed to an unending afterlife? Perhaps various afterlives are just temporary 'waiting rooms' for your soul to rest in while you wait for a suitable body to be reborn into.
I've thought about this image before and it's an interesting idea. It's still questionable to me because it still doesn't really solve the concept of eternity once humanity is inevitably no more at some point during the lifetime of the universe. Even if it's very late in the universe's lifetime.
My 2 cents: Maybe if you'd like that there's an option for you. But I for one probably won't like it. As in, I already did the "life" thing, now I wanna rest. Maybe after a couple eons I'll reconsider. I'd hate to think of my afterlife as simply a waiting room to go _back to where I came from_
Would that mean that there are a finite number of souls in the universe, you think? If each one is recycled then two scenarios come to mind, both horrifying. Firstly, what happens if the human population grows to outnumber the souls in the afterlife? Would people be born soulless? And the alternative would be new souls ARE created, but that would mean the 'wait' to be reincarnated would grow exponentially longer as more and more souls are added to the line.
Cicero's On Old Age is on my TBR list, thanks to the conversation we had earlier this week! The philosophy videos with the polytheist perspective have been so fun to watch. Definitely makes you think about some of these ideas in a different way.
loved this. for a super interesting additional deepdive, the multiplicity and yet similarity of various pagan afterlives is fascinating. some of them almost sound like the same place, or places that can exist within a similar travelable domain
@@celerisgarden2228 Taylor spammed that all over the comments section. I don't know if he thinks it is a counter-argument or what. As memory serves, he's barking up the wrong European tradition anyway. I won't name the one he wants; I don't want some of my happy places peppered with that "question."
@@taylorfusher2997 Slekie's are the most comparable thing to Mermaids I know of. The short answer no, they believed more along the lines of being able to change ones Hugr. For more information on Hugr's I'd look at Ocean's Video on the Multiple parts of the soul, and then you can better understand the context of Slekie myths and lore.
the problem with the christian heaven/hell dichotomy, is that one is supposed to sincerely believe... if one's belief is motivated by sycophantic desire to be rewarded, or by cowardly fear of punishment, then neither are sincerely and god-centered held beliefs, but selfishly-held beliefs, something the bible routinely condemns (think "go in your closet, not the street corner, to pray" and "the fearful investor of the king's coinage")... yet it uses both the carrot and stick as implicit reasons why one should believe... but nowhere does it say how to unselfishly believe in a god in a way that i unselfishly believe in the existence of the phone in my hand.
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
I learned something fun today. - If you travel to Japan, and use the word "Viking" there. They take it as you want to find an "all-you-can-eat buffet". That what they call it over there. - In the 1950's... '57 i think, the manager of the Imperial Hotel chain in Japan, went to a conference in Copenhagen and experienced the "Smorgasbord" there. And "all-you-can-eat buffet". He was so impressed by this, that he brought the concept with him back to Japan, and since then, where ever you go... If you use the word "Viking" there, you're looking for an "all-you-can-eat buffet". At least, that's how i understood the story. Correct me if i'm wrong, but yea... I got a good chuckle out of that, when i heard it...
A thought....! In the " all that you can eat" vein of thought..( it can also be taken as ,you, want to " experience all that you can, while on this plane of existence ") just let that soak in for a minute...then proceed with your world... The concept of " viking" is not,as some believe,the notation of a people as a race...but..rather ,your activities that you participate in!! Sooo ,go [ viking] for a weekend and do it right!!! Orrrrr don't, if you are all intimidated, by the Viking Mindset!! Be well, n , Hail to Thor !! 👍🐺🧙♂️🦊👍!!!!
I don't know about the truth of the back story one way or the other, but I absolutely remember "viking style" as code for all-you-can-eat-buffet. Back in the day there was one in Osaka that I loved, but don't ask me where exactly it was...
Wiktionary and Japanese Wikipedia both corroborate that story (look up "バイキング"). "Viking" was the name of the restaurant said manager established, which is why that name in particular became associated with the concept. It's a genericized brand name similar to English words like band-aid, dumpster, Xerox, Kleenex, Sharpie, and Coke, with the only real difference being that it's an actual word in another language.
I have found your and Wind in the World Tree’s takes on the afterlife to be interesting, but I hadn’t really thought about applying them to Pascal’s Wager. Fascinating video as always.
As a person who was raised Polytheist(Vedic Pantheon). I could never understand the "fear god" or the fear of hell part. It seemed ridiculous to me lol.
I've seen a version of Pascal's Wager used for climate change (the categories being we do something, we do nothing, its real and caused by humans, its real and not caused by humans, and its not real) which has stuck with me for years. But the religious version doesn't hold quite as much water because of precisely what you mentioned: a truly all knowing god would know that people who believe purely to avoid hell are not true believers, which is a camp I fell into. Nothing about Christianity as a structure appealed to me. Not the indoor churches, not the lack of appreciation for the natural world, not the morality system. But I hovered around it for a long while (never actually being a proper Christian though) *because* of that fear. Which is just... not a way to live.
I don't think Pascal's Wager holds much water when applied to anthropocentric climate change either tbh. Since someone could posit that in addition to climate change being real and caused by humans, it's possible that human activity will result in a runaway greenhouse effect and mean the end of all life on Earth if we do not eliminate the use of all fossil fuels by the year 2025. Now, it would clearly be disastrous if we tried to do that in such a short time frame, but it would be worth it if it meant saving the Earth. So, following the logic of Pascal's Wager, should we not eliminate fossil fuels as soon as possible regardless of how many people would suffer from it? No, we should act based on the best available evidence rather than gambling on something because of the mere possibility of total annihilation.
My latest spicy take, an ego centered god fosters ego centered followers. And wtf would I do in heaven for eternity? Float around pumping up that god's ego some more? And the more non-believers I step on, the bigger my cloud will be? Nah, I'd rather live an authentic life and follow my own moral compass. My moral compass doesn't lead me to harm others but my, now excised, "christian" ego wouldn't mind stepping on others to get a bigger cloud. Dropping the christian god beliefs made me free to be a better person. Thank you, Ocean for bringing thought and reasoning to the table ❤ I appreciate your views to discuss with others.
@@cosmictreason2242 misconceptions? Hahahahaha the Christian god in the bible is a genocidal egotistical idiot depicted as the opposite of those things
I've often thought about what kind of afterlife I'd like to have, if there was one, but since I obviously can't tell if there's an afterlife at all, I'll just work under the assumption this life is my only one and make the best of it. Which is why this roughly the sixth video on this channel I've binged over the past hours.
An interesting bit to chew on!! The whole of this is something I am going to take and ponder... As a " polytheist ", I appreciate the idea,being presented, there are several things that gave me pause... I will go n meditate for a bit..n come back with my discussion on this piece!! 👍🐺🧙♂️🦊👍!!
In other words Pascal's Wager rests on false dichotomies: those of a particular (usually Christian) God vs Nothing, and a particular Heaven vs particular Hell. I've started calling it Pascal's Roulette.
He said that he "hopes" that hell does not exist but that his opinion is not official doctrine of the catholic church. Still very interesting but as a chronic nitpicker I just had to jump in to correct, sorry
It gladdens me to think about walking with Thor and Freyja after my death and learning about their interests and interactions with other Gods. It’s interesting to think about how I’ll get to know them more and strengthen my relationship with them before I choose to take on another body, as Earth seems to be the place to be.
Monotheist and Christian pastor: I completely agree with your analysis, especially the critiques of the reductive way that mere right belief leads to salvation that some Christians assert. Pastorally, Pascal’s Wager is rather useless as it doesn’t actually form one spiritually but merely gives them “fire insurance.”
An eternity in a paradise that my loved ones were denied sounds like eternal torture. A cruel joke. Not even getting into the idea that the human mind needs stimuli and the potential maddening that experiencing eternity might cause.
Virgin Monotheist: "you're good only if you believe in his omni-dude", "refuses to elaborate the existence of evil with his all loving omni-dude", "Heaven if you believe in his omni-dude, Hell if you don't", "spends hours every week boring himself to death with an army of others, mostly unknown, omni-dude believers". Chad Polytheist: "it's fine whatever you believe in", "Gods aren't perfect and they have their own agenda", "CYOA afterlives, no eternal damnation", "celebrations in nature with an handful of friends".
I always imagined that Pascal wrote his wager to convince himself and maybe help others come to the same conclusion as himself. Considering he was a mathematician he might have had a hard time believing in supernatural entities and had to somehow reconcile with that using logic.
My favourite counter to the wager is to get the apologist to admit that, according to their religion, one or more of my loved ones is in hell. Then I ask them how they expect me to experience eternal bliss in heaven while everyone I love is suffering. The wise ones shut up. The honest ones go on to explain that their god is a MONSTER.
I agree that the concept of heaven being "unchanging eternal bliss" is fairly contrary to human nature. That being said, I think polytheism has a good framework (with its multiplicity of gods) to argue for afterlives that can grow to infinite perfections- essentially a neverending becoming that eternally satisfies the human need for change
This is a fantastic video. I've heard Pascal's Wager debunked or refuted always from an atheistic standpoint, so hearing one from a fellow pagan via a video I just happened to get recommended is very nifty. Comment for the algorithm and subbed
What I was taught when I was a Christian was that Heaven would be an eternity of praising God. I walked away when I realized that eternally stroking a Deity's fragile ego was just as much torment as Hell.
I, for one, am very interested to see a pagan polytheist's thoughts on the infamous Pascal's wager. Also, may i suggest responding to President Sunday's response to one of your videos that he did in his channel.
Most of his criticisms were uninteresting. It seemed that he was upset that the videos he watched weren't tailored for him. And there were points where he agreed with my video but seemed angry about that, or tried to frame it as a disagreement. There's other criticisms that he made that are answered by other videos on my channel. Overall I felt that his video just confirmed my lack of interest in having a conversation with him.
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences." H. P. Lovecraft
Another problem is how can a god be considered just and moral when he is literally willing to punish a finite crime (or at least what a god percieves as a crime) with an infinite punishment?
The biggest problem for me in the pascal's wager is that it assumes a 50/50 chance of God existing/not existing. If probability of God's existence is infinitesimally small then then the ultimate benefit in believing and ultimate loss in not believing can become finite depending on what kind of infinities we are talking about i.e. wagering on God's existence does not guarantee infinite gain versus finite loss and wagering on God's non-existence does not guarantee infinite loss versus finite gain.
I think Heaven, if real, is a bait and switch. In order to get in there, you have to revel in the idea of an innocent man being tortured to death so that you can escape a deserved punishment. It's a way for the afterlife to gather up all the sociopaths and keep them from bothering the rest of us.
10:25 first time I see this mentioned in the context of Pascal's Wager. I'm actually holding this position. Eternal UNCHANGING whatever (bliss or torture doesn't matter) will become torture eventually. So I'm happy without any kind of afterlife
It wouldn’t. And the idea of unchanging is arbitrary. Could you enjoy immortality in this universe? Then you could enjoy it without all the things you don’t like present also
@@cosmictreason2242 That is the point, I could not enjoy immortality in this universe and I can't in an afterlife. I don't understand what you mean with "And the idea of unchanging is arbitrary". What I mean is, in an infinite timeframe nothing new will happen anymore after a short amount of time.
Great video! It's important to keep Pascal's Wager in context. Pascal wrote 200 pages in "Pensees" why Christianity is the one true religion; he wrote about Jesus, miracles, prophecies and morality. Then, the wager comes in for people that aren't completely convinced either way. Pascal compares Christian commitment to a coin toss; a 50/50 gamble. He says skeptics should attend Church. Pascal's Wager was meant to be a tie breaker for agnostics stuck between atheism and Christianity. In that context, I think the wager is solid.
This is a perspective on the wager that I haven't seen before. I like it. Your perspective on afterlives particularly resonated with me. I'm an atheist, I think there probably isn't an afterlife. But if there is, neat! I think some other approaches also score points against the wager. For instance, a little thought reveals that proposing infinite reward kind of breaks cost-benefit analysis. What if I claim to be God, and offer you a ticket to heaven in exchange for all of your posessions? By the same finite vs. infinite logic, rationality would require you to accept. This is obviously untenable, so I think we must exclude infinite rewards from this kind of cost-benefit analysis.
William Lane Craig's comment about "people who believe in Odin or Zeus" can be chalked down to Christian supremacists being ignorant as per fuckin' usual.
The other problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes there's no major cost to believing in whatever brand of Christianity said apologist is marketing for. For a white cishet man, belonging to some patriarchal denomination where women are taught to always submit to their husband, it can seem like a pretty light burden, at least to authoritarian men who love the idea of having inferiors to dominate. Men who prefer having an equal partner they can trust to be honest with them wouldn't find this as appealing. For women in the same group, the burden and loss of opportunity is far higher, especially if this denomination abhors contraception. For members of the LGBT+ community the price is even higher, as they lose out on the opportunity to live as their authentic selves. In addition, monotheism doesn't eliminate the problem of picking the correct spiritual option, because there are an estimated 45,000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of them insistent that *their* sect is the only truly correct one. Yes, many of them are willing to grudgingly concede that at least some of the members of other denominations might make it to Heaven, but it still makes choosing where to place your chip very nerve-wracking. Also, the Heaven described by some denominations seems scarcely better than eternal torment. Imagine spending 24/7 praising the name of an insecure jealous god without any breaks for meals or sleep... forever. Without end. If you think about it, it's literally hellish.
Still SO happy I was raised by an atheist and an agnostic. I don't have any of the lingering effects of dogma crammed down my throat. I was free to explore any religion I wanted to explore. Humankind didn't have any religions until someone made them up. I love 'the wild mess that is the Trinity' comment. I didn't know anything about Pascal's wager. My take? - What a bunch of baloney. I have been labeled a pagan and a heathen by others (all Christians), as if I care what they think.
RE: Multiple afterlives. As a Hindu polytheist I certainly share this view. The subtle worlds (regarded from a physical perspective as "the afterlife") are diverse and innumerable. For example, there are subtle worlds based on tribal and ancestral relations, subtle worlds based on the contemplation of various gnostic systems, and subtle worlds based on relationships with various forms of Deity or Deities. Therefore Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: "Worshippers of the celestial gods take birth amongst the celestial gods, worshippers of the ancestors go to the ancestors, worshippers of ghosts take birth amongst such beings, and my devotees come to me. (BG 9.25)
What is your theological tradition im curious? Hindus as far as Im aware are monists not strict polythiests this is because while other gods are given reverence they are never thought of as distinct independent beings. But I have issues with this portrayal of the after life and i guess it boils back down to the starting doctrines of your faith which is what is the purpose of life? In my theology the purpose life is to be connected again to the Allha the universal desired its father and its father the unconditioned reality allows him to choose his own actions this creates the universe and physical life. If every after life is different then how can 1 reunite with the 1 or god. Perhaps you don't see god in your tradition as being the sole purpose of human existence. I mean think about it women are supposed to act as our 2nd halfs but they imperfect they can cheat they can tempt they can harm. However god is perfect god is divine, god is everything ppl want and more
@@reptilesspurky937 You ask about the purpose of life. In Hinduism it is a fourfold purpose described by the word Purushartha. (1) KAMA: enjoyment, delight--physical, emotional, aesthetic, and intellectual (2) ARTHA: material sufficiency; accumulation of adequate wealth and power (3) DHARMA: ethics, social responsibility, care of the environment (4) MOKSHA: the transcendental aspect of consciousness, awareness of the Source Consciousness. These four goals are sometimes complementary and sometimes oppositional with respect to one another. Wisdom is needed to advance all four goals. I would describe Hindu deities as aspects of the cosmogenic Logos adapted for human accessibiity. Somewhat analogous to Graphical User Interface, they are avatars of the all-originating Supreme. The personal characteristics of deities are described in the imperfect but indicative sacred stories of the Tradition. Philosophically, I follow the monist Shiva-tradition of Kashmir--to be specific, the Pratyabhijna metaphysics outlined by Utpaladeva, the great lover and connoisseur of Shiva. The way I practice my religion, it's both monist and polytheist. I have an overarching monist philosophy, but what I actually do is enter into a "family-mimetic" relationship with Shiva (father), Parvati (mother), Vishnu (maternal uncle) and Ganesha (deity of strongest affinity, the son of Shiva and Parvati). For me, they are not a means to an end. Rather I love them as transcendental divine personalities. I have no desire for so-called "liberation" apart from relationship with them.
Thankyou for Channel, I've really enjoyed it & your delivery 🙂 I have a question. In your studies have you ever come across a lady with one purple eye, one broze/gold eye? In/Or a flat 2D vibrating dark place, with thundering, crashing rocks & the low hum is very loud?
I would say that reincarnation “solves the problem” of the infinite, unchanging afterlife. I have long seen the various divine realms as a kind of in between state - realms where one exists between lives until their spirit/soul/whatever is ready for their next life. There is opportunity to heal from whatever spiritual traumas one may have experienced before going on to a different life. If you’ll forgive the extreme nerdiness of this, I think it’s a fitting metaphor: it’s like when you stop playing one character in some RPG and make a new one. Different appearance, skills, backstory, class/profession, but still the same player.
My fear of hell turned into fear of not existing. I used to be afraid of going to hell daily as my religion was pretty much built on fear of hell. I don't really have a problem with not existing anymore than any normal person's ego would cause. But I have this gap in my daily life where worry and fear used to be so my mind just filled in the gaps I guess.
As an Atheist I can say that non belief in an afterlife doesn't inherently mean not wanting one, I am scared of the idea of Oblivion as much as the next guy, and while Christian Afterlifes seem either boring or awful (I would rather stop existing than existing in absolute pain for centuries and then stop existing) there are Afterlifes I do find more appealing.
As someone that spent years in evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, I remember well the fear based arguments. They ingrained the fear of hell, pain and punishment into us, while professing the Christian God was a God of love. I saw a comment below referencing it to gas lighting, and I can definitely agree. On one hand I was taught that scaring the hell out of someone, literally, to get them into heaven was a good thing because they weren't shake and baking in hell, on the other hand I was told that fear demonstrated a lack of faith. So, fear was good enough to convert someone, but bad enough to damn someone since faith was necessary for salvation... you just couldn't "win". I think you have it right. Should there be an afterlife, which, for a variety of reasons, I have no doubt there is, then it will be a diverse place, reflecting the infinity of creation here, for if the souls of all things are eternal, and even our own universe is as vast as it is that we only understand the smallest part, how much more true will this be for the eternal realms? It seems very simple logic to me, and in the face of such an eternity, what is there to fear?
@@cosmictreason2242 I'm not an atheist. I'm a heathen, and I truly believe death is nothing to fear. It's the horizon we will all cross on the way to our next journey. This life was always fated to end, when it will end, but we will each continue along.
@@cosmictreason2242 Says the christian who doesn't accept the truth of the revelation of Muhammad and clings to the false security of his misinterpretation of the words of a mortal prophet.
@@alicev5496 Islam is a satanic plagiarism of the Bible. This is patently obvious for all to see, which is why you atheists dont bother trying to disprove it, because its disproof is common sense. Like where it describes Mary as part of the Trinity, showing that whoever wrote the Quran did not know what Christians believe.
You have a couple of good points, but as an atheist non existence sounds great. And the only thing that can be better that nothing is ending up as a bladesmith in Valhalla
I normally wouldn't write a huge annoying comment like this but as a student of philosophy at university at the moment who has read and studied Pascal (as well as the Cicero later mentioned here) on this, I thought I would clarify some things. I would really recommend actually reading the original Pascal on this matter which can be found in Pensées ("Thoughts"). Which is, bare in mind, itself posthumously published notes. This argument is often mischaracterised (particularly by some less than honest Christians) and a number of the arguments that are constructed against this mischaracterised argument were already responded to and acknowledged in the original text by Pascal. Like the argument that either God will see through your false belief or that you cannot simply choose to have a genuine belief. I can't for instance just suddenly wake up and force myself to believe that I am a tree for instance, likewise for a belief in God. These two arguments amount to the same thing and are not a problem for Pascal who basically recommends that non-believers who want to believe go to church and partake in their local religious ceremonies and social affairs and that with time if they keep practicing this, they will genuinely believe. A "fake it till you make it" if you like. This does have some potential problems too but they aren't the massive glaring issue found in the previous two counter arguments. Additionally part of the wager is supposed to come from the immediate benefits of just being able to participate in a community with a shared interest like this for whatever that's worth The many gods objection is I think a fair objection from a dyed in the wool Atheist, who was frankly not the subject of the wager in the first place and wasn't even really a type of person that you could reasonably find during Pascal's time. Pascal directs his wager towards someone of his time and community who are unsure whether they want to, or even can convince themselves to, believe in God or not. Which is exactly why it's not presented as a proof of God's existence like other arguments of this type. To those open to the existence of a vast variety of different gods or afterlives it's the wrong format for talking about this conflict as the video points out. As for Cicero he's not the only one who held this view of the afterlife, it was actually a fairly common view during his time at least based on the academic texts that have survived. He likely got it either from the Early/Mid Stoics who held a very similar view, or Epicurus who was particularly committed to it. Both of these similarly have their roots in a number of arguments presented by Plato through the character of Socrates in his dialogues (and possibly also the historical Socrates).
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
The concept of hell in islam is explicitly described as gruesome never-ending torture, arguably much more graphic, detailed, and horrific than Christianity's version. It's scholarly consensus that all non believers go to infinite hell, believers who sinned still do go to hell, (depending on how much they've sinned, they'll stay until their souls are purified) until they eventually end up in heaven. I don't see how this is widely different than Christianity's way of getting to heaven, since belief in religious dogma is ultimately the key for salvation in both religions
Ocean got it right that Christianity is utterly unique in predicating your destination on your relationship to a Christ figure and not your earthly works. I wish he would dig deeper into this
I looked up Pascal's Wager when I saw the title of the video and realized that, to some degree, I had a similar philosophy. I figure, if my faith is misplaced then I have nothing to lose, so I wont abandon it without good reason. Am I going to say believing what I believe in is the only rational way to live? No, only that I think faith has merit. However, now I wonder if my faith was/is genuine. I feel it was growing up, but now I'm not quite certain.
@@OceanKeltoi it does! In the song where the German Shepard is convincing the bulldog to be cool, paradise -pair a dice he even fourth wall breaks to ask if we get it lol
Heck most Christians don't even agree with what the afterlife is like. I grew up in a Lutheran church that believed that hell and satan, as mainstream christans believe, are just mistranslations and that they don't exist. (Fun fact there were even discussions on if heaven even existed as well. The general conclusion being probably, but not as we imagine it) Personally eternal anything sounds like hell to me. I stand by any deity worth worshipping will care more about if I was a good person then if I believed in them or not.
I loved that Terry Pratchett's answer to Pascal's Wager was that the man arrived in Heaven to find a group of very angry gods surrounding him, before giving him a good kicking for playing silly buggers.
Glad to see you again, missed my punaganism. And I had a very christian roommate in college, and he used pascal's wager in conversations about faith, he made it general but is was a attempt at conversion. It was passive aggressive after that, but I was no less the bastard either.
Id rather be fighting and feasting for eternity in Vallhalla than floating mindlessly on a cloud in heaven. Honestly Hel's domane seems infanately better than ignorant bliss.
Since looking at more than Christianity for my spiritual information, I have seen some very interesting stuff about the afterlife. Effectively, everyone goes to heaven when they die. However it is a place where your thoughts manifest instantly. So if you believe there is not afterlife your thoughts generate a void where your soul sleeps (until it's bored and decides to come back.) Someone who believes in a totally different afterlife will cause what they expect to be there to appear. Note however, someone who is deeply troubled will create their own worst hell. A thief might initially create an urban setting in which people he knows are present. But over time, he might think "everything is good as long as the police don't come." And from that moment on his afterlife becomes running from the cops. If he was concerned about someone stealing from him, that too could play into what he sees. So for me, Pascal's wager is irrelevant. I know heaven exists, I know God exists, and I know that the actual dogma of a specific religion doesn't matter.
This got me thinking about the creationist thought on complexity... everything is too complex for it to have happened randomly, well... I think it's too complex for just one super being to handle. Why is it that it MUST be ONE omnipotent God and not multiple, or none? I'll tell you, it's because they are blindly accepting their religion without sufficent critical thought to recognize they are on shaky ground at best.
This is such a wonderful video. I came into this not knowing what Pascal's wager was and left with a greater understanding of the world and an even greater understanding of my own religion.
Same!
You came into this not knowing what Pascal's wager was, and left not knowing what Pascal's wager was. Most of his objections are refuted by the part of Pascal's wager that he left out.
@@_Gormakesh_ What part was, as you say, left out?
@Darlene Griffith The part at the very end of his wager. When he says "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing."
Behaving as if God exists makes your life better. So there's no loss even if God turns out to not exist.
@@taylorfusher2997 What do mermaids have to do with it?
Hot Take: Pascal's Wager only works on people that don't understand what a protection racket is
@@imom007 I was thinking Michael Corleone. The Our Father. Tony however would be the patron saint of Newark and those who never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Extra ironic considering Michael Franzese, a former Mafia capo turned RUclipsr, has often spoken in favor of Pascal's wager.
@@punchdrunkpunkfgc Lol That IS funny
Yes! I think you've hit upon the true nature of that wager.
A Hindu man has died and was granted access to Nirvana. He is instructed to go to 4th door on the right, passing the doors to Valhalla, Elusium and one door that he is told, when passing by, he must be extremely quiet and stealthy.
"Why?" asks the man.
"That's Christian Heaven. And they think they're the only ones here."
Lol
A deity that punishes you with eternal damnation for not believing in it, it's not a deity worth of worship.
u respect ur mom, because u came from her. You obey her rules, because you live in her house. Same with God, we obey God because we are his creation on his Earth.
@@jaytheking1782But that fails, because : you can always see your mom and expirience her, not god. And if you disobey her, she doesnt throw you into an eternal torture camp, and if she did, she would definitely lose you to authorities
I had a boss who inappropriately tried to bully me "back to Christ" many years back. She stopped after my response of "Are you telling me your god doesn't know your heart? Because no matter what my words profess in my heart I will never believe in the god you are speaking of." It was a toxic and bad work environment but it did help me grow in my own comfort of faith. As an atheist friend and I once concluded after a discussion of the afterlife (existence or non) the suckiest thing is we won't know until we die. So for me that means this is my domain and it is up to me to make the world better by my presence she happens to feel the same. The afterlife is something one either will or will not get (I do believe in one but who knows that could be all in my head) so the only measure of a person's life is their actions during it. I don't need the fear of eternal doom to be a better person indeed during my youth when I only knew Christianity I at times felt the doom of hell was preferable to the living hell I was experiencing especially as I lay in bed for days immobilized by pain.
@@taylorfusher2997 what’s the point of this comment?
@@taylorfusher2997 Mermaids were nor part of Norse folklore before the larger scale christianisation and western European influence after the yeae 1000. It seems some, especially in the Atlantic Islands, believed in selkies though.
Anyway I suppose you're free to launch whatever unconvincing "gotcha" argument you've been trying to pull in most comments now?
@@danh5368 he keeps repeating the same reply to many other comments in this video. Ignore this person
well that's the thing. you have to go against your own heart in order to be "saved". according to the abrahamic faiths people are influenced by demonic spirits that can control their desires including the desire to sin, the desire to believe in multiple gods or the desire to believe such things just don't exist.
2 vlog brothers quotes stick out to me on this topic. Ones older, and basically said preferably our goal in life should be to 'decrease world suck levels' where possible. More recently on their podcast they were discussing climate doomerism, I'm sure you're familiar with, being on the internet, that eventually the earth will be completely uninhabitable by humans etc etc. Hank was saying to this 'congrats, you figured it out, but that was always going to be the case. The sun will eventually expand enough to wipe the planet out completely yadda yadda. But we don't live there. We live here, and now, with people who's lives we can make better.' Basically the same sentiments, over a decade apart, but both have really stuck with me on a better way to live your life than being good because of an alleged reward. Regardless of what happens when we die, we don't live there. We live here. So I'm gonna make some people happy before I go.
I think the "multiple Gods" objection is really just a particular version of the "you haven't actually told me how to guarantee entrance" objection. It's like a wager where you don't actually know if you've placed the bet or not!
One of the oldest statues on Europe is small wooden man with the head of a lion.
Does that mean that there were once were-lions roaming Europe? Or is it only a representation of the collective imagination?
People create things that doesn't exist, what is more plausible:
Literally fish people with no fossil evidence, photos, etc.
Simply the collective imagination that passed from culture to culture?
Pascal's Wager always felt like it was both using the stick & the carrot to pursuade. The carrot being heaven, & the stick being damnation--both are eternal. But really, it's about fear & avoiding hell so you hedge your bets "just in case." So much of Christianity seemed fear based to me & they definitely used fear as a stick to demand obedience & compliance to authoritarian rules.
I think it depends on the sect. There are some Christian groups that are absolutely fear based. There are others that are much more relaxed and tend to believe that people go to heaven so long as they were a good person.
10:25 THANK YOU for expressing this: that unchanging eternity, for some, would be torture. Long story short, as a little kid, growing up Catholic, I developed deep existential anxiety about this very thing. I spent most of my life worried not about Hell at all, but the grim dichotomy between Eternity and Oblivion. I haven't heard anyone else even TALK about this idea before, much less understand it. Again, thank you, thank you.
Its honestly quite daunting when you start considering the implications of an eternal unchanging afterlife.
@@OceanKeltoi I’d always wondered “if no one is ever sad in heaven, would I be forced to be happy? Those I would miss because they went to hell (or as I was taught, ceased to exist) be wiped from my memory, to keep me from being sad? Would I have fake copies of them ? It always seemed so…. Wrong.
My personal belief as a Christian is that the afterlife will be whatever would make that person most happy.
As an atheist, I think you're super entertaining. Just stumbled on you via algorithm, and this was a really cool video. Good work, and please keep making this shit. Very edifying!
I've had a man approach me with Pascal's Wager. He absolutely thought it would convert me.
@12:22 Plato's Appology - Socrates has a similar view. Either the gods (the Greek ones in this case) exist, in which case Socrates will go about the standard Grecian afterlife, or they don't, in which case it will simple be an eternal dreamless sleep. I find it a strangly calming thought.
Bad idea to pick what sounds most soothing to you
@@cosmictreason2242 this is about religion the most soothing is literally the only thing that matters
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle you can be soothed all the way to hell then
that brief description of heaven as one of the halls of the land of the dead perfectly captures my personal thoughts on heaven as a concept.
in short, an eldritch horror.
or you've seen the depiction on *Supernatural.*
I could go along with one that has just a chill deathgod , or more, and jusr hanging out, with damnation nit be infinite and for the worst of the worse only, not as threat.
Just the differwnce of hel really being chill and caring makes a lot of differwnce.
Not saying christians cant be that just zhe fear of hell, yeah. Is common.
Like there is a difference that you will be judged abd fear afterlife, and if yiu are ded, you are ded, and there is another afterlife, but the average is fine.
Many years ago I was dying & awaiting a heart transplant. I considered myself a Christian at the time and had a lot of people praying for me. Many said they "knew" I would be ok. God told them. I didn't know that. He declined to reassure me.
My heart was getting worse daily and all I could hope for was a surgery that was a 50/50 shot I would even come out alive (back in the 1990s).
The only way I could face death was, like Ciscero wrote, that should I die, I wouldn't know it. That was all the comfort I really had; my faith got me no where when facing my last months of life. (I guess you could say my deconversion story started there).
(Obviously I was fortunate enough to get a transplant and to do well).
Great video!
Wow. What a powerful story. I hope you are still doing well!
Something that always rubbed me wrong about the Christian heaven was that I always felt like I had to barter my life on this world in order to gain access. I had to live a certain way, do certain things, even if at times it felt off or rubbed me the wrong way. I find it difficult to disagree with any of your points here. Polytheism seems to make the prospect of both life and death all the more beautiful to me. In life, I can make my own way and become a better person for it. As for death, maybe there is no longer any need to fear the unknown. Something like that anyway. Another great video Ocean!
That’s not the case but assuming it were, would you really abandon infinite reward in favor of short term selfish satisfaction? That’s obviously foolish
Wait! Infinite rewards also involves getting kittens? Well, I'm sold. Convert me!
These philosophy videos are so on point. I am really enjoying how you are able to weave Polytheistic and Heathen religion into a conversation where often times the only religious argument is between Western Christian belief and atheism. They really strengthen the path many of us are sometimes taking uneasy steps upon. Thank you for that.
I actually struggle with the concept of an afterlife. Not because I fear boredom as I believe that the passage of time will work WAY differently in that situation, and not because I worry about oblivion as I am fine with that if there is no alternative. My weird concern is the personal connectivity of people in this life. That is to say, is one STUCK where they go even if it is not a place of punishment? My wife is Christian. Not a particularly devout one, but she is certainly not a Heathen. Does she have to go to Christian heaven with a bunch of angels that won't stop singing for 5 minutes about how awesome God is while I soak up some eternal summer in Hel since I'm pretty sure I won't make the line-cut list of Odin/Thor/Freyja etc? What about my Muslim and Hindu friends? Is the afterlife a series of Halls where there is a celestial water cooler where different faiths can hang out around and shoot the shit?
As far as Pascal's wager goes, I have always viewed it as a cheap ploy that misses the point of what faith is about. Faith shouldn't be a mathematically leaning postulation where your options are: I wasted a little time, I wasted no time, this is Awesome, I'm burning for eternity. It sorta flies in the face of moving mountains with faith the size of a mustard seed and all that. You either believe the proclamations of Christianity or you don't. Giving me math homework isn't going to sway me, though.
Why not, the only certainty is that you cant know, so whynot! I mean the hanging out maybe even mixed.
I always likened Pascal's Wager to choosing the right Holy Grail from Indiana Jones.
"He chose.... poorly."
The idea was first introduced to me in the context that this was Pascal making a joke, I don't know if it's true but it was a surprise when I realised this is an argument people take seriously
There was always this thing on my mind about Pascal's wager: what if Christians worship the wrong god? If they do, they lose everything.
I was raised Lutheran and came up with my own version of Pascal's wager when I was a kid, and came to the conclusion that if God was all knowing, he would know that was the reason and it wouldn't matter anyway. That's part of what started my journey away from Christianity. I was actually petty surprised when I learned about it years later in my intro to philosophy class in college.
And yeah, the only version of the many gods objection I'd heard before exploring polytheism (including from some bigger atheist RUclips channels) was the multiple copies of heaven and hell which, as you said, isn't really applicable.
Besides, even as a Christian, hell always seemed to be where all the fun people go. Heaven never really seemed like a reward to me.
I was raised catholic and oddly had a very similar experience. I got by for a while convincing myself I didn't care if I went to heaven but would serve the Christian God anyway, but eventually I actually stopped caring and then well what was the point after that? I started asking tough questions and now I'm here
"hell always seemed to be where all the fun people go"
King Radboud of Frisia, after a Christian priest tried to convert him to Christianity, famously said "I would rather live in Hell with my ancestors than alone in Heaven"
Very based
IDK I feel that Pascal's wager is a fucking gaslighting tecnique to get more christian followers.
It is imao
IT is. Just like Christians usurping the pagan holidays as their own. More butts in the seats.
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
NO it is not. It is a gaslighting technique to keep followers.
Apologetics are not built around convincing non believers. It's to give believers something to cling to.
hey that isn't fair. A lot of smaller cults also use it to get followers
Been really enjoying these philosophy videos you've been making lately! :D
same! videos that really make you think are my favourite kind
Same! I love me some philosophy and thought-provoking questions :3
I’ve always seen the afterlife as a place of rest within our soul’s journey, we can relax, meet old friends, our ancestors, celebrate, make merry (as long as you didn’t piss off the gods enough to be yeeted into Tartarus) before we’re ready for our next journey, maybe another life, maybe as a spirit, idk
What do you think about the idea of reincarnation as opposed to an unending afterlife?
Perhaps various afterlives are just temporary 'waiting rooms' for your soul to rest in while you wait for a suitable body to be reborn into.
I've thought about this image before and it's an interesting idea. It's still questionable to me because it still doesn't really solve the concept of eternity once humanity is inevitably no more at some point during the lifetime of the universe. Even if it's very late in the universe's lifetime.
My 2 cents:
Maybe if you'd like that there's an option for you. But I for one probably won't like it. As in, I already did the "life" thing, now I wanna rest. Maybe after a couple eons I'll reconsider. I'd hate to think of my afterlife as simply a waiting room to go _back to where I came from_
Would that mean that there are a finite number of souls in the universe, you think? If each one is recycled then two scenarios come to mind, both horrifying. Firstly, what happens if the human population grows to outnumber the souls in the afterlife? Would people be born soulless? And the alternative would be new souls ARE created, but that would mean the 'wait' to be reincarnated would grow exponentially longer as more and more souls are added to the line.
@@aesayggdrasil6317 presumably you don't always come back human. So those "new" souls probs used to be different creatures previously.
@@Lycaon1765 Personally, I'm hoping for a next life out in Andromeda someplace. I understand the views are spectacular! 🙃
Cicero's On Old Age is on my TBR list, thanks to the conversation we had earlier this week! The philosophy videos with the polytheist perspective have been so fun to watch. Definitely makes you think about some of these ideas in a different way.
@@taylorfusher2997 uh, I have no idea what you're trying to ask, here.
loved this. for a super interesting additional deepdive, the multiplicity and yet similarity of various pagan afterlives is fascinating. some of them almost sound like the same place, or places that can exist within a similar travelable domain
and pair o' dice has got to be in your top 5 intros, i swear
@@taylorfusher2997 why are you asking me?
@@celerisgarden2228 Taylor spammed that all over the comments section. I don't know if he thinks it is a counter-argument or what. As memory serves, he's barking up the wrong European tradition anyway. I won't name the one he wants; I don't want some of my happy places peppered with that "question."
Love the philosophical Videos Ocean, especially the long ones. They always have me revisiting some thoughts in my head, or inspiring brand new ones.
Glad you like them!
@@taylorfusher2997 Slekie's are the most comparable thing to Mermaids I know of. The short answer no, they believed more along the lines of being able to change ones Hugr.
For more information on Hugr's I'd look at Ocean's Video on the Multiple parts of the soul, and then you can better understand the context of Slekie myths and lore.
I look forward to Ocean’s puns almost as much as the videos themselves.
the problem with the christian heaven/hell dichotomy, is that one is supposed to sincerely believe... if one's belief is motivated by sycophantic desire to be rewarded, or by cowardly fear of punishment, then neither are sincerely and god-centered held beliefs, but selfishly-held beliefs, something the bible routinely condemns (think "go in your closet, not the street corner, to pray" and "the fearful investor of the king's coinage")... yet it uses both the carrot and stick as implicit reasons why one should believe... but nowhere does it say how to unselfishly believe in a god in a way that i unselfishly believe in the existence of the phone in my hand.
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
What? Free kittens? Nobody told me there were free kittens!!!
hell is where the tea is confirmed
I learned something fun today. - If you travel to Japan, and use the word "Viking" there. They take it as you want to find an "all-you-can-eat buffet". That what they call it over there. - In the 1950's... '57 i think, the manager of the Imperial Hotel chain in Japan, went to a conference in Copenhagen and experienced the "Smorgasbord" there. And "all-you-can-eat buffet". He was so impressed by this, that he brought the concept with him back to Japan, and since then, where ever you go... If you use the word "Viking" there, you're looking for an "all-you-can-eat buffet".
At least, that's how i understood the story. Correct me if i'm wrong, but yea... I got a good chuckle out of that, when i heard it...
A thought....! In the " all that you can eat" vein of thought..( it can also be taken as ,you, want to " experience all that you can, while on this plane of existence ") just let that soak in for a minute...then proceed with your world...
The concept of " viking" is not,as some believe,the notation of a people as a race...but..rather ,your activities that you participate in!! Sooo ,go [ viking] for a weekend and do it right!!! Orrrrr don't, if you are all intimidated, by the Viking Mindset!!
Be well, n , Hail to Thor !!
👍🐺🧙♂️🦊👍!!!!
I don't know about the truth of the back story one way or the other, but I absolutely remember "viking style" as code for all-you-can-eat-buffet. Back in the day there was one in Osaka that I loved, but don't ask me where exactly it was...
Wiktionary and Japanese Wikipedia both corroborate that story (look up "バイキング"). "Viking" was the name of the restaurant said manager established, which is why that name in particular became associated with the concept. It's a genericized brand name similar to English words like band-aid, dumpster, Xerox, Kleenex, Sharpie, and Coke, with the only real difference being that it's an actual word in another language.
@@taylorfusher2997 vikings did not believe in mermaids but the Christians who converted them did
That was fascinating. Thank you
I have found your and Wind in the World Tree’s takes on the afterlife to be interesting, but I hadn’t really thought about applying them to Pascal’s Wager. Fascinating video as always.
As a person who was raised Polytheist(Vedic Pantheon). I could never understand the "fear god" or the fear of hell part. It seemed ridiculous to me lol.
Glad you're back, the philosophy videos are the ones I like best
Missed the premiere but this was an amazing video!!
I'm glad you liked it man
You. I like you. This channel is exactly what I've been looking for for a while. Its now my buddy at work for a few weeks.
9:24 Isn’t there sometimes four heaven hell purgatory and limbo?
I appreciate this. Is a respectful video, and you get to the point.
Great video. Have always leaned toward you manifest the afterlife you subscribe to theory over most. Like all things, it has to be a spectrum.
love the info, your vids are always good info, and heck (at the end)yeah love that album too, dude :] last track is epic af
as a Priest of C'thulu, I see that Pascal's Wager is a meaningless attempt to cope with things _far beyond_ what one can perceive or comprehend.
I've seen a version of Pascal's Wager used for climate change (the categories being we do something, we do nothing, its real and caused by humans, its real and not caused by humans, and its not real) which has stuck with me for years. But the religious version doesn't hold quite as much water because of precisely what you mentioned: a truly all knowing god would know that people who believe purely to avoid hell are not true believers, which is a camp I fell into. Nothing about Christianity as a structure appealed to me. Not the indoor churches, not the lack of appreciation for the natural world, not the morality system. But I hovered around it for a long while (never actually being a proper Christian though) *because* of that fear. Which is just... not a way to live.
I don't think Pascal's Wager holds much water when applied to anthropocentric climate change either tbh. Since someone could posit that in addition to climate change being real and caused by humans, it's possible that human activity will result in a runaway greenhouse effect and mean the end of all life on Earth if we do not eliminate the use of all fossil fuels by the year 2025.
Now, it would clearly be disastrous if we tried to do that in such a short time frame, but it would be worth it if it meant saving the Earth. So, following the logic of Pascal's Wager, should we not eliminate fossil fuels as soon as possible regardless of how many people would suffer from it?
No, we should act based on the best available evidence rather than gambling on something because of the mere possibility of total annihilation.
My latest spicy take, an ego centered god fosters ego centered followers. And wtf would I do in heaven for eternity? Float around pumping up that god's ego some more? And the more non-believers I step on, the bigger my cloud will be? Nah, I'd rather live an authentic life and follow my own moral compass. My moral compass doesn't lead me to harm others but my, now excised, "christian" ego wouldn't mind stepping on others to get a bigger cloud. Dropping the christian god beliefs made me free to be a better person.
Thank you, Ocean for bringing thought and reasoning to the table ❤ I appreciate your views to discuss with others.
I mean, you could correct these misconceptions, but then it would interfere with you living your life the way you want. Might be inconvenient
@@cosmictreason2242 misconceptions? Hahahahaha the Christian god in the bible is a genocidal egotistical idiot depicted as the opposite of those things
I've often thought about what kind of afterlife I'd like to have, if there was one, but since I obviously can't tell if there's an afterlife at all, I'll just work under the assumption this life is my only one and make the best of it. Which is why this roughly the sixth video on this channel I've binged over the past hours.
Thank you for your wonderful pun(s), I haven't facepalmed that hard in a while. Good pun is good.
Took me way longer than I'd like to admit to get the pun with Pair of Dice in the beginning :D - great video!
An interesting bit to chew on!! The whole of this is something I am going to take and ponder...
As a " polytheist ", I appreciate the idea,being presented, there are several things that gave me pause...
I will go n meditate for a bit..n come back with my discussion on this piece!!
👍🐺🧙♂️🦊👍!!
In other words Pascal's Wager rests on false dichotomies: those of a particular (usually Christian) God vs Nothing, and a particular Heaven vs particular Hell.
I've started calling it Pascal's Roulette.
Interesting side note the Pope recently said hell does not exist
He said that he "hopes" that hell does not exist but that his opinion is not official doctrine of the catholic church. Still very interesting but as a chronic nitpicker I just had to jump in to correct, sorry
It gladdens me to think about walking with Thor and Freyja after my death and learning about their interests and interactions with other Gods. It’s interesting to think about how I’ll get to know them more and strengthen my relationship with them before I choose to take on another body, as Earth seems to be the place to be.
Fascinating and intriguing!
Loved this new video 💚
‘Isn’t gambling a sin? Seems like a bad foot to start off on.’
The pun at the beginning took me a moment, but then I genuinely laughed... good one :)
Monotheist and Christian pastor: I completely agree with your analysis, especially the critiques of the reductive way that mere right belief leads to salvation that some Christians assert. Pastorally, Pascal’s Wager is rather useless as it doesn’t actually form one spiritually but merely gives them “fire insurance.”
An eternity in a paradise that my loved ones were denied sounds like eternal torture. A cruel joke. Not even getting into the idea that the human mind needs stimuli and the potential maddening that experiencing eternity might cause.
Virgin Monotheist: "you're good only if you believe in his omni-dude", "refuses to elaborate the existence of evil with his all loving omni-dude", "Heaven if you believe in his omni-dude, Hell if you don't", "spends hours every week boring himself to death with an army of others, mostly unknown, omni-dude believers".
Chad Polytheist: "it's fine whatever you believe in", "Gods aren't perfect and they have their own agenda", "CYOA afterlives, no eternal damnation", "celebrations in nature with an handful of friends".
I always imagined that Pascal wrote his wager to convince himself and maybe help others come to the same conclusion as himself. Considering he was a mathematician he might have had a hard time believing in supernatural entities and had to somehow reconcile with that using logic.
My favourite counter to the wager is to get the apologist to admit that, according to their religion, one or more of my loved ones is in hell. Then I ask them how they expect me to experience eternal bliss in heaven while everyone I love is suffering. The wise ones shut up. The honest ones go on to explain that their god is a MONSTER.
Satan is the monster. God saves you from him but only if you yourself are not a monster and have accepted him into your heart.
the slogan we all heard the most, so mathematically, fails on people the most
@@ForbiddenFollyFollower No, your god is the monster.
@@NorthernNorthdude91749 Why do you say that? I want to know everything about you. I'm an American living in Oregon.
I agree that the concept of heaven being "unchanging eternal bliss" is fairly contrary to human nature. That being said, I think polytheism has a good framework (with its multiplicity of gods) to argue for afterlives that can grow to infinite perfections- essentially a neverending becoming that eternally satisfies the human need for change
This is a fantastic video. I've heard Pascal's Wager debunked or refuted always from an atheistic standpoint, so hearing one from a fellow pagan via a video I just happened to get recommended is very nifty. Comment for the algorithm and subbed
What I was taught when I was a Christian was that Heaven would be an eternity of praising God. I walked away when I realized that eternally stroking a Deity's fragile ego was just as much torment as Hell.
I, for one, am very interested to see a pagan polytheist's thoughts on the infamous Pascal's wager.
Also, may i suggest responding to President Sunday's response to one of your videos that he did in his channel.
Most of his criticisms were uninteresting. It seemed that he was upset that the videos he watched weren't tailored for him. And there were points where he agreed with my video but seemed angry about that, or tried to frame it as a disagreement. There's other criticisms that he made that are answered by other videos on my channel. Overall I felt that his video just confirmed my lack of interest in having a conversation with him.
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
H. P. Lovecraft
Another problem is how can a god be considered just and moral when he is literally willing to punish a finite crime (or at least what a god percieves as a crime) with an infinite punishment?
so what if my actions in this life qualifies for more than one afterlife?
The biggest problem for me in the pascal's wager is that it assumes a 50/50 chance of God existing/not existing. If probability of God's existence is infinitesimally small then then the ultimate benefit in believing and ultimate loss in not believing can become finite depending on what kind of infinities we are talking about i.e. wagering on God's existence does not guarantee infinite gain versus finite loss and wagering on God's non-existence does not guarantee infinite loss versus finite gain.
I think Heaven, if real, is a bait and switch. In order to get in there, you have to revel in the idea of an innocent man being tortured to death so that you can escape a deserved punishment.
It's a way for the afterlife to gather up all the sociopaths and keep them from bothering the rest of us.
I’m hoping the afterlife involves us solving Asimov’s last question, like a more positive Ragnarok.
That’ll keep things interesting.
10:25 first time I see this mentioned in the context of Pascal's Wager. I'm actually holding this position. Eternal UNCHANGING whatever (bliss or torture doesn't matter) will become torture eventually. So I'm happy without any kind of afterlife
It wouldn’t. And the idea of unchanging is arbitrary. Could you enjoy immortality in this universe? Then you could enjoy it without all the things you don’t like present also
@@cosmictreason2242 That is the point, I could not enjoy immortality in this universe and I can't in an afterlife.
I don't understand what you mean with "And the idea of unchanging is arbitrary". What I mean is, in an infinite timeframe nothing new will happen anymore after a short amount of time.
Great video!
It's important to keep Pascal's Wager in context. Pascal wrote 200 pages in "Pensees" why Christianity is the one true religion; he wrote about Jesus, miracles, prophecies and morality.
Then, the wager comes in for people that aren't completely convinced either way. Pascal compares Christian commitment to a coin toss; a 50/50 gamble. He says skeptics should attend Church.
Pascal's Wager was meant to be a tie breaker for agnostics stuck between atheism and Christianity.
In that context, I think the wager is solid.
This is a perspective on the wager that I haven't seen before. I like it. Your perspective on afterlives particularly resonated with me. I'm an atheist, I think there probably isn't an afterlife. But if there is, neat!
I think some other approaches also score points against the wager. For instance, a little thought reveals that proposing infinite reward kind of breaks cost-benefit analysis. What if I claim to be God, and offer you a ticket to heaven in exchange for all of your posessions? By the same finite vs. infinite logic, rationality would require you to accept. This is obviously untenable, so I think we must exclude infinite rewards from this kind of cost-benefit analysis.
William Lane Craig's comment about "people who believe in Odin or Zeus" can be chalked down to Christian supremacists being ignorant as per fuckin' usual.
To me, the bit about halls, visiting family and friends is just the definition of heaven to me.
Saw a heathen in the wild yesterday. I thought these mythical creatures were hunted to extinction ages ago
more like we're hunted by Panera Bread
The other problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes there's no major cost to believing in whatever brand of Christianity said apologist is marketing for. For a white cishet man, belonging to some patriarchal denomination where women are taught to always submit to their husband, it can seem like a pretty light burden, at least to authoritarian men who love the idea of having inferiors to dominate. Men who prefer having an equal partner they can trust to be honest with them wouldn't find this as appealing.
For women in the same group, the burden and loss of opportunity is far higher, especially if this denomination abhors contraception. For members of the LGBT+ community the price is even higher, as they lose out on the opportunity to live as their authentic selves.
In addition, monotheism doesn't eliminate the problem of picking the correct spiritual option, because there are an estimated 45,000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of them insistent that *their* sect is the only truly correct one. Yes, many of them are willing to grudgingly concede that at least some of the members of other denominations might make it to Heaven, but it still makes choosing where to place your chip very nerve-wracking.
Also, the Heaven described by some denominations seems scarcely better than eternal torment. Imagine spending 24/7 praising the name of an insecure jealous god without any breaks for meals or sleep... forever. Without end. If you think about it, it's literally hellish.
Lots of misconceptions in here. For one, sin is not your authentic self - and if it is, it’s not worth being
@@cosmictreason2242 You're missing the point. If Trad Christianity isn't true, then being under the LGBT+ umbrella isn't a sin.
It do be true tho
Still SO happy I was raised by an atheist and an agnostic. I don't have any of the lingering effects of dogma crammed down my throat. I was free to explore any religion I wanted to explore. Humankind didn't have any religions until someone made them up. I love 'the wild mess that is the Trinity' comment. I didn't know anything about Pascal's wager. My take? - What a bunch of baloney. I have been labeled a pagan and a heathen by others (all Christians), as if I care what they think.
RE: Multiple afterlives. As a Hindu polytheist I certainly share this view. The subtle worlds (regarded from a physical perspective as "the afterlife") are diverse and innumerable. For example, there are subtle worlds based on tribal and ancestral relations, subtle worlds based on the contemplation of various gnostic systems, and subtle worlds based on relationships with various forms of Deity or Deities. Therefore Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: "Worshippers of the celestial gods take birth amongst the celestial gods, worshippers of the ancestors go to the ancestors, worshippers of ghosts take birth amongst such beings, and my devotees come to me. (BG 9.25)
What is your theological tradition im curious? Hindus as far as Im aware are monists not strict polythiests this is because while other gods are given reverence they are never thought of as distinct independent beings.
But I have issues with this portrayal of the after life and i guess it boils back down to the starting doctrines of your faith which is what is the purpose of life?
In my theology the purpose life is to be connected again to the Allha the universal desired its father and its father the unconditioned reality allows him to choose his own actions this creates the universe and physical life.
If every after life is different then how can 1 reunite with the 1 or god.
Perhaps you don't see god in your tradition as being the sole purpose of human existence.
I mean think about it women are supposed to act as our 2nd halfs but they imperfect they can cheat they can tempt they can harm. However god is perfect god is divine, god is everything ppl want and more
@@reptilesspurky937 You ask about the purpose of life. In Hinduism it is a fourfold purpose described by the word Purushartha. (1) KAMA: enjoyment, delight--physical, emotional, aesthetic, and intellectual (2) ARTHA: material sufficiency; accumulation of adequate wealth and power (3) DHARMA: ethics, social responsibility, care of the environment (4) MOKSHA: the transcendental aspect of consciousness, awareness of the Source Consciousness. These four goals are sometimes complementary and sometimes oppositional with respect to one another. Wisdom is needed to advance all four goals.
I would describe Hindu deities as aspects of the cosmogenic Logos adapted for human accessibiity. Somewhat analogous to Graphical User Interface, they are avatars of the all-originating Supreme. The personal characteristics of deities are described in the imperfect but indicative sacred stories of the Tradition.
Philosophically, I follow the monist Shiva-tradition of Kashmir--to be specific, the Pratyabhijna metaphysics outlined by Utpaladeva, the great lover and connoisseur of Shiva.
The way I practice my religion, it's both monist and polytheist. I have an overarching monist philosophy, but what I actually do is enter into a "family-mimetic" relationship with Shiva (father), Parvati (mother), Vishnu (maternal uncle) and Ganesha (deity of strongest affinity, the son of Shiva and Parvati). For me, they are not a means to an end. Rather I love them as transcendental divine personalities. I have no desire for so-called "liberation" apart from relationship with them.
I wouldn’t know personally but, I doubt boredom exist in either Hell or Heaven….. But, I never died and stayed in Heaven or Hell for eternity.
Thankyou for Channel, I've really enjoyed it & your delivery 🙂 I have a question. In your studies have you ever come across a lady with one purple eye, one broze/gold eye? In/Or a flat 2D vibrating dark place, with thundering, crashing rocks & the low hum is very loud?
I would say that reincarnation “solves the problem” of the infinite, unchanging afterlife. I have long seen the various divine realms as a kind of in between state - realms where one exists between lives until their spirit/soul/whatever is ready for their next life. There is opportunity to heal from whatever spiritual traumas one may have experienced before going on to a different life. If you’ll forgive the extreme nerdiness of this, I think it’s a fitting metaphor: it’s like when you stop playing one character in some RPG and make a new one. Different appearance, skills, backstory, class/profession, but still the same player.
My fear of hell turned into fear of not existing. I used to be afraid of going to hell daily as my religion was pretty much built on fear of hell. I don't really have a problem with not existing anymore than any normal person's ego would cause. But I have this gap in my daily life where worry and fear used to be so my mind just filled in the gaps I guess.
As an Atheist I can say that non belief in an afterlife doesn't inherently mean not wanting one, I am scared of the idea of Oblivion as much as the next guy, and while Christian Afterlifes seem either boring or awful (I would rather stop existing than existing in absolute pain for centuries and then stop existing) there are Afterlifes I do find more appealing.
As someone that spent years in evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, I remember well the fear based arguments. They ingrained the fear of hell, pain and punishment into us, while professing the Christian God was a God of love.
I saw a comment below referencing it to gas lighting, and I can definitely agree. On one hand I was taught that scaring the hell out of someone, literally, to get them into heaven was a good thing because they weren't shake and baking in hell, on the other hand I was told that fear demonstrated a lack of faith. So, fear was good enough to convert someone, but bad enough to damn someone since faith was necessary for salvation... you just couldn't "win".
I think you have it right. Should there be an afterlife, which, for a variety of reasons, I have no doubt there is, then it will be a diverse place, reflecting the infinity of creation here, for if the souls of all things are eternal, and even our own universe is as vast as it is that we only understand the smallest part, how much more true will this be for the eternal realms? It seems very simple logic to me, and in the face of such an eternity, what is there to fear?
There’s no fear for the Christian. There is for the atheist, hence why as the scripture says you are haunted your whole life by the fear of death
@@cosmictreason2242 I'm not an atheist. I'm a heathen, and I truly believe death is nothing to fear. It's the horizon we will all cross on the way to our next journey.
This life was always fated to end, when it will end, but we will each continue along.
@@NiveusLepus well that’s called false security
@@cosmictreason2242 Says the christian who doesn't accept the truth of the revelation of Muhammad and clings to the false security of his misinterpretation of the words of a mortal prophet.
@@alicev5496 Islam is a satanic plagiarism of the Bible. This is patently obvious for all to see, which is why you atheists dont bother trying to disprove it, because its disproof is common sense. Like where it describes Mary as part of the Trinity, showing that whoever wrote the Quran did not know what Christians believe.
You have a couple of good points, but as an atheist non existence sounds great.
And the only thing that can be better that nothing is ending up as a bladesmith in Valhalla
I normally wouldn't write a huge annoying comment like this but as a student of philosophy at university at the moment who has read and studied Pascal (as well as the Cicero later mentioned here) on this, I thought I would clarify some things. I would really recommend actually reading the original Pascal on this matter which can be found in Pensées ("Thoughts"). Which is, bare in mind, itself posthumously published notes.
This argument is often mischaracterised (particularly by some less than honest Christians) and a number of the arguments that are constructed against this mischaracterised argument were already responded to and acknowledged in the original text by Pascal. Like the argument that either God will see through your false belief or that you cannot simply choose to have a genuine belief. I can't for instance just suddenly wake up and force myself to believe that I am a tree for instance, likewise for a belief in God. These two arguments amount to the same thing and are not a problem for Pascal who basically recommends that non-believers who want to believe go to church and partake in their local religious ceremonies and social affairs and that with time if they keep practicing this, they will genuinely believe. A "fake it till you make it" if you like. This does have some potential problems too but they aren't the massive glaring issue found in the previous two counter arguments. Additionally part of the wager is supposed to come from the immediate benefits of just being able to participate in a community with a shared interest like this for whatever that's worth
The many gods objection is I think a fair objection from a dyed in the wool Atheist, who was frankly not the subject of the wager in the first place and wasn't even really a type of person that you could reasonably find during Pascal's time. Pascal directs his wager towards someone of his time and community who are unsure whether they want to, or even can convince themselves to, believe in God or not. Which is exactly why it's not presented as a proof of God's existence like other arguments of this type. To those open to the existence of a vast variety of different gods or afterlives it's the wrong format for talking about this conflict as the video points out.
As for Cicero he's not the only one who held this view of the afterlife, it was actually a fairly common view during his time at least based on the academic texts that have survived. He likely got it either from the Early/Mid Stoics who held a very similar view, or Epicurus who was particularly committed to it. Both of these similarly have their roots in a number of arguments presented by Plato through the character of Socrates in his dialogues (and possibly also the historical Socrates).
Having actually read the section in Pensees where pascal presents the wager, everybody gets it wrong. It’s not a proof of God’s existence, it’s a proof of the incorrectness of an agnostic position. His whole point is that it’s only logical to be pro or anti, apathy or indecision makes no logical sense
The concept of hell in islam is explicitly described as gruesome never-ending torture, arguably much more graphic, detailed, and horrific than Christianity's version. It's scholarly consensus that all non believers go to infinite hell, believers who sinned still do go to hell, (depending on how much they've sinned, they'll stay until their souls are purified) until they eventually end up in heaven. I don't see how this is widely different than Christianity's way of getting to heaven, since belief in religious dogma is ultimately the key for salvation in both religions
Ocean got it right that Christianity is utterly unique in predicating your destination on your relationship to a Christ figure and not your earthly works. I wish he would dig deeper into this
I'd like to see you and Paulogia do a discussion about the existence of gods.
this kind of debate is largely uninteresting to most polytheists, since the vast majority of us don't try to convince others to believe in polytheism.
@@celerisgarden2228 Okay, but I'm not talking about proselytizing. I'm talking about the existence or non-existence of asserted entities.
@@gregcampwriter you’d get better discussion from Reformed Christians
I looked up Pascal's Wager when I saw the title of the video and realized that, to some degree, I had a similar philosophy. I figure, if my faith is misplaced then I have nothing to lose, so I wont abandon it without good reason. Am I going to say believing what I believe in is the only rational way to live? No, only that I think faith has merit. However, now I wonder if my faith was/is genuine. I feel it was growing up, but now I'm not quite certain.
You stole your pun from all dogs go to heaven, don’t even try to hide it ocean 😂
wait that pun shows up there too? I haven't seen that movie since I was a tiny tiny child
@@OceanKeltoi heaven't you? (i'm not a pro 🤣)
@@OceanKeltoi it does! In the song where the German Shepard is convincing the bulldog to be cool, paradise -pair a dice he even fourth wall breaks to ask if we get it lol
A boring numbing afterlife reminds me a lot of issues explored in the final season of the Good Place.
Cicero got that from Plato's depiction of Socrates in the Apology.
The thought of existing forever sounds exhausting.
Heck most Christians don't even agree with what the afterlife is like. I grew up in a Lutheran church that believed that hell and satan, as mainstream christans believe, are just mistranslations and that they don't exist. (Fun fact there were even discussions on if heaven even existed as well. The general conclusion being probably, but not as we imagine it) Personally eternal anything sounds like hell to me. I stand by any deity worth worshipping will care more about if I was a good person then if I believed in them or not.
I loved that Terry Pratchett's answer to Pascal's Wager was that the man arrived in Heaven to find a group of very angry gods surrounding him, before giving him a good kicking for playing silly buggers.
Glad to see you again, missed my punaganism.
And I had a very christian roommate in college, and he used pascal's wager in conversations about faith, he made it general but is was a attempt at conversion. It was passive aggressive after that, but I was no less the bastard either.
Id rather be fighting and feasting for eternity in Vallhalla than floating mindlessly on a cloud in heaven. Honestly Hel's domane seems infanately better than ignorant bliss.
Since looking at more than Christianity for my spiritual information, I have seen some very interesting stuff about the afterlife. Effectively, everyone goes to heaven when they die. However it is a place where your thoughts manifest instantly. So if you believe there is not afterlife your thoughts generate a void where your soul sleeps (until it's bored and decides to come back.) Someone who believes in a totally different afterlife will cause what they expect to be there to appear.
Note however, someone who is deeply troubled will create their own worst hell. A thief might initially create an urban setting in which people he knows are present. But over time, he might think "everything is good as long as the police don't come." And from that moment on his afterlife becomes running from the cops. If he was concerned about someone stealing from him, that too could play into what he sees.
So for me, Pascal's wager is irrelevant. I know heaven exists, I know God exists, and I know that the actual dogma of a specific religion doesn't matter.
This got me thinking about the creationist thought on complexity... everything is too complex for it to have happened randomly, well... I think it's too complex for just one super being to handle.
Why is it that it MUST be ONE omnipotent God and not multiple, or none? I'll tell you, it's because they are blindly accepting their religion without sufficent critical thought to recognize they are on shaky ground at best.