Talk:Atheist's wager

message: This article doesn't refer to any credible sources at all.  Putting "atheist's wager" into a google books search gives only 31 responses and the majority of these are 'books' composed of compilations of wikipedia articles.  Searching for the phrase in google scholar gives only 18 responses.  Unless someone can find sources that show credible philosophers or theologians talking about this notion then I suggest the article should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.32.252 (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a thing. Well, it's a thing, but ino reliable sources showing that this is noteworthy have ever existed on this page. Previous AFD results were to merge, so I redirected article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it's clear that this article's only reason for existing was to advance the personal views of the editors who created it. Now, certainly, responses to Pascal's Wager are notable, especially as it's so easily criticized, but these criticisms are notable only in the context of that topic, not on their own. And I see no evidence that philosophers, atheists or agnostics even use the term "Athesits Wager" for the common response. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, previous AfD results were not to merge. One was to keep, the other was to merge. The second AfD took place 2 and a half years ago. Since then, it appears that consensus has changed. The article needs a fair amount of work, but simply blanking it against that consensus is probably not the best route.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a number of sources, reformulated the lead, attributed a few statements, and additionally removed a poor quality source we were using previously. To be clear, my only real objection to merging is that the material can't be given sufficient space within Pascal's Wager (an already long article). IIRC, that specific point was discussed elsewhere at some point last year. Anyway, the article is in better shape now, being properly attributed and sourced. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this even a thing? 

message: I agree with the sentiment that is laid out, if in fact we assume that the way God's purported judgement is through acts. But to my understanding, Pascal's Wager is never about judging acts. It merely posits a false dichotomy of belief, as belief (in God's existence) is often stated as the only requirement for entering heaven. Pascal's Wager only makes account of believing and being wrong vs. not believing and being wrong. So putting it forth as a "response" to Pascal's Wager seems inaccurate or at least futile considering what appears to be an inherent irrelevancy or false equivocation, if you will.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1978 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the point 

message: First of all, many atheists think there is no such thing as "good" and "evil". Even if they accept it can be shown that "good" and "evil" are relative concepts. The definitions can reach terribly intricate levels if pondered over to great depth. Firstly, one must be serious about understanding philosophical concepts.  -Polytope4d (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First define "good" and "evil" 

message: This sounds like the work of a malevolent god, representing the missing cells in this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.54.239 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would a benevolent god send a person to eternal hell?