Hacker News Reader

Comment by czbond | Hacker News Reader

Even if G*d didn't exist, one probably can't prove either way. So, from a risk/reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not.

And from a purely emotionless approach, if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required.

That is a high ROI trade either way. <shrug>

[Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I'm giving an example. I don't know Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc enough to say what the bare minimum is]

View on HN

What if believing in one specific god pisses off the “real” god when you die and you go to hell for believing in the wrong god, while not believing in any god gets you a free pass?

If we’re making up unfalsifiable claims then this seems just as likely to happen as not.

Any enlightened G0d would know that humans minds are limited, and thus the worship of any G*d is actually meant for them. Thus no problem. [Italics are being inserted by HN]

God is not a swear word. You don't need to censor it.

If it is enlightened do you even need to be believer?

One will not know, but the downside risk is greater if you must at least believe.

You can make up arbitrary properties about the god you believe in all day. Some very mainstream beliefs include such ideas as "you have to spread your religion over others". You cannot chose which arbitrary properties you make your wager on.

>"you have to spread your religion over others". That just seems like growth hacking (to put it in startup parlance). I find it illogical that a creator would see someone with a good heart, pure intentions, and kick them off to their "hell" because they didn't "spread your religion over others".

But you find it logical that a creator with absolutely no evidence of their existence would, if existing, care or even perceive that you are "not worshipping god in general".

No. Personally, I believe a creator would be busy with the countless other universes and couldn't care mostly about people's day to day.

What I mainly suggested was the ROI of believing in a creator vs not was a high ROI, low effort return (a la Pascal's wager) - but that I also believe Pascal stopped too soon in the next logical step to heavily weight the probabilities towards a conclusion.

Pascal's wager.

But the big flaw there is rather straightforward: which god? Is worshiping a false god better or worse than not worshiping at all?

Should one avoid eating pork in case the Jewish/Islamic god is real? Or maybe avoid eating beef in case the Hindu religions are the true ones? Or maybe the Jains have it figured out, and you should really be vegan to be safe? Perhaps the Aztecs were right, and we're way overdue on our sacrifices?

I think Pascal's wager didn't take the final logical step. A G0d knows that any worship on Earth is meant for them. It's like a symlink

Well, the god of the Christians doesn't seem to know that as there is a commandment written to not worship other gods.

Either many gods seem to have missed the memo that they are identical to all other gods of their type or your conception of religion is more about you than the religions that actually exist, and I would bet on the latter.

I would bet that humans, especially in the early times that interpreted all of the now current religious texts - were poorly educated, biased, and also human. So ... there were "additions/mis-translations/an individuals belief/better if phrased this way" type of interpretations over thousands of years.

My bet... in the grand universe scheme of things, a creator doesn't give two craps about which human created, modified, "game of telephone" religion a person follows. As long as that person attempts to be good, and improve themselves, and kind. And ask for forgiveness of mistakes.

I believe G0d is smarter than all of us, and looks past all these individual human infightings of "my football team (errr religion) is better than yours" type.

> if you're a Western religion (Christian) you don't have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required.

That is true only for some Christians. Protestants - and not sure if all of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

This idea is called Pascal's wager.

What if what G*d really wants is for people not to believe in G*d and those that do are sent to hell? How do you know the mind of G*d?

Yes it is. But taking the highest probabilistic chance, with the highest ROI, and lowest downside seems the best right? It is better than arguing what ifs, and nuances all day?

Highest probabilistic chance is that there is no afterlife.

Like when you are in deep anaesthesia during serious surgery. The one without dreams (no lights at the end of the tunnel). They switch you off and when everythings goes ok switch you on again. Your mind is in void. When you wake up it was just moment for you. Nothing in between. Whet if surgery goes bad? You think that you are going to wake up in to the death? Void is bigger card.

Or the void we all experienced. The one before you was born.

Edit: obviously I'm talking about my believes here.

Not high bar ?

Financially there is significant amount of contribution expected to be made, in some countries like Germany the state even now would collect it on behalf of the church ( Catholic) ! I don't even know if it is possible to officially declare Catholic to the State and not pay the taxes.

Ethically joining a religion would also mean you are tacitly approving every horror that religion as an institution is committing now (like child molestation or coverups, corruption, treatment of native residents say in Canada, blatant discrimination ( is a black-gay-trans pope (or equivalent) possible ? ), or has in the past( genocides, conquests in the name of God, racism, witch hunting, anti science stances and so on).

More than half the wars in history have been in the name of religion, how would you without emotion accept all that baggage ? No rational person with a modicum of ethics can accept it, only indoctrinated faith from a early age can sustain this construct.

All of the encumbrances you listed are made by humans. You can sit in the forest with the religious book of your choice and get you all you need... and never have to talk to a soul, or participate, or give money. You listed human blockades

Belief ( or lack of ) in God is not what the article is really about.

My impression is article is largely about social constructs and intent of the way each plan/topic is written is designed to make you think on the structure of the social agreement and impact on how we operate as humans.

Religion is also a social construct, those blockades are the problem that needs discussions, personal spiritual journey and learning complex ethical topics using allegory is well personal choice and nobody else's business.

What if threatening people causes suffering on earth?

Of course it does. Every country in the world has caused grievances on itself, it's people, and others in the name of a religion. Never particular to one region, religion, or belief.

Most teach some sort of humbleness, kindness, etc. But humans still act like crappy, unintelligent, low level beings.... because we are just that, low level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com