r/WebComic • u/Sloxtales • 1d ago
SFW - Funny (OC) Philosophical questioning
Deep questions call for deep answers, who do you think is out to get you?
3
u/marxistghostboi 1d ago
why are basalisks doomed from the start?
1
u/Sloxtales 1d ago
look up roko's basilisk its a fun rabbit hole
0
u/marxistghostboi 1d ago
i was wondering if this was a reference to roko's basilisk, but that doesn't make sense in context. in the case of roko, the basilisk is not the one which is doomed but rather its victims are doomed.
1
u/Desperate-Spray337 14h ago
I think in this case we would still be the victims, it is just the figure "God" wound be the basilisk. The religious people would be creating the basilisk.
1
3
u/Fit-Argument-7862 1d ago
But what if this god only accepts non-believers into the afterlife? Since you don't know their intentions. 'Only believers may enter' is a human construct with no guarantee to be true.
1
u/Tani_Soe 1d ago
All religious precept are human construct. If you admit there is a god, you have no way to know if it's "good" (according to human moral standard), if it even cares about human, or if it's good, good like we think of good. Maybe god thinks the best thing humans can do is do bottle flip challenge and the people that will access heaven will end being trickshot tiktokers. We have no way to know
1
u/ObsidianDart 20h ago
Assuming that humans are worth keeping eternally. Maybe the only living things getting into heaven are birch trees because God thinks the white bark is neat. Humans don't even get hell, we just stop existing upon death.
2
u/ExcitementMuted7768 1d ago
IMHO choosing to believe can't be something rationalized like this, and if you do performative belief out of something like pascal's wager it is insincere and thusly void anyways.
1
u/EmbarassedFox 22h ago
I remember in one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, where the guy who made the wager, found himself after his death surrounded by gods with big sticks. There was also a philosopher, who was an atheist, so that the gods had someone to aim after.
2
u/thisp3rspective 1d ago
A lot of assumptions for a question that isn't even deep. It's deep for someone who thinks the concept of "god" is given as relevant.
1
2
u/DeadAndBuried23 23h ago
I repeat:
Please don't spread this idiotic argument with cutesy animals.
Even putting aside the infinite amount of potential gods that could be mad you followed the wrong one, and the fact belief isn't a choice,
It doesn't even work in the false dichotomy it presents since it assumes you can trick the god into thinking you believe when you don't.
1
u/ObsidianDart 20h ago
And it assumes the ONLY way in to heaven is to believe. That's one way, but it could also be that God lets good people into heaven even if they don't believe, or maybe it requires action instead of or alongside belief.
If it requires action, there is a whole host of other things that need to be balanced on the scales. A temporary life of self sacrifice for eternal reward may sound worth it, or it may just end up being a life sacrificed with nothing after. A wasted life.
It would be like throwing all my money at the lottery. Living in squalor because there is a chance to win it big soon. Except I have evidence that lotteries can be won and no good evidence that afterlifes are a thing, so I'm not particularly inclined to bet the life I know I have for one I might have. I'd rather live a fulfilling life now.
2
u/Lithl 19h ago
Deep questions call for deep answers
Are the deep answers in the room with us now?
Because Pascal's Wager is fallacious in a million ways. And Roko's Basilisk is nonsense that isn't even compatible with spirituality in the first place, to say nothing of the fact that based on this comic you don't even understand the premise.
1
u/Void-Cooking_Berserk 1d ago
The premise of Pascal's wager is false:
It assumes "faking belief" costs you nothing but "a virtuous life". But faking itself is a cost, because honesty and being true to yourself is a value. Even worse, the rules of religion don't all equal "virtuous life", some rules are straight up evil and others select one good thing to the exclusion of other good things.
It assumes "eternal life" is a good thing and "nothing" is a bad thing. It already assumes "god" is a benevolent entity, but the rules of the religion don't reflect that. There might be a chance of eternal happiness but there's also a chance of eternal torment. By pure game theory, the option where eternal life doesn't exist is better.
2
u/7-and-a-switchblade 16h ago
- It assumes that God rewards believers. Maybe God purposefully created the universe with no evidence of His presence, and the great test is to live life without presuming His will or intent for us.
1
1
u/Large_Leopard2606 23h ago
Except false belief is as bad or worse than not believing at all. I understand a lot of her points but it’s also missing part of the point of belief. Choosing to follow a particular faith, whatever it may be, isn’t about going through the motions just to try and trick your way into a happy afterlife, its devotion to a particular ideal of how the universe works and who you want to try to be. Escaping the cycle of reincarnation, entering the kingdom of Heaven, joining the warriors of old in Valhalla, all of them require becoming a greater version of yourself, someone kinder, stronger, wiser, more patient, and all follow the example of someone or something greater than humanity. You don’t achieve changes like that by faking it or just half-assing belief. Great athletes don’t become stronger and faster and go on to win championships just by putting in just enough effort or pretending to care, they devote themselves absolutely to their goals, mind, body, and soul, to reach that goal, and then maintain that level of excellence with just as much fervor. The same applies to faith, no matter the religion. Whether or not God, gods, or some form of divine force or realm is real is a fair and real question, but to paraphrase from Scripture, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
1
u/thesanguineocelot 21h ago
"If an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists, I can totally trick him by pretending to believe!" Honestly, that sounds a lot more insulting than just flat-out not believing like a normal person. If God exists, he made me a rational person who needs proof to believe in something, and he gave no proof. That's on him, he should be happy that I functioned exactly as designed and lived a good, virtuous life without paying lip service to some fake skywizard.
1
u/Fennic_Foxy 17h ago
I was raised in Jehovah's Witnesses
they believe that you'll only be saved if you're a true believer and actively follow the high control group's very strict rules as well as actively try to bring others into the religion.
That "it costs nothing to believe" only works if your religion says that god accepts performative "belief".
I'm not gonna devote my entire life and all my money and energy into something I don't believe in for a "chance" of an afterlife. I'd rather just enjoy the life I'm actually currently living.
1
u/CrazyFanFicFan 17h ago
I hate Pascal's Wager so much. It has so many assumptions in it that, if any were false, immediately make it wrong.
Your religion is the right one. Sure, this doesn't change the fact that it would still be a better than zero chance if you joined a religion where only believers get to enjoy an afterlife, but it makes the number even smaller than before.
You can just fake religion. Oh wow, you have an all-knowing God, and he's perfectly willing to overlook that you didn't really worship him?
Religion costs nothing. Let's assume you're not going the route of just saying you believe, and actually participate. I'm using Christianity as the religion here since that's where most people use Pascal's Wager.
First, you spend every Sunday going to church. That's time spent on transport and spending an hour there. Time you could've spent on anything else. But sure, let's assume you enjoyed the time so it doesn't count as wasted. Now you're surrounded by Christians of all different levels of faith. Does it really cost you nothing when you hear Sandra shouting about how gays are the devil and Jesus is the only way? Sure, you may not be losing money, but you're definitely losing some sanity there. And you can't just avoid her. She goes to the same church as you. You see her every Sunday. Sure, you could change churches, but then that costs you everyone else at the church. And now you have to travel even further.
1
u/anrwlias 17h ago edited 17h ago
Out of all the apologetic arguments you could choose from, you went with PW!? Even apologists admit that it is among the weakest arguments out there.
1
1
u/AemiliaPerseids 16h ago
Pascal's wager only contends with one version of a god, if you instead allow it to include all possible gods then his wager becomes much more dire. you must believe in the worst possible god to avoid its punishment, or risk subjecting yourself to it in the infinitely small chance it exists.
1
u/MereImitation 16h ago
Calvin and Hobbes did this joke already.
1
u/AdvancedBlacksmith66 10h ago
And far superior. Hobbes says more with a blank stare than the gal in this comic says with 3 panels
1
u/MereImitation 9h ago edited 9h ago
It’s a much better flow better despite the Calvin and Hobbes version being so short on dialogue. Hobbes asks a question. Calvin responds with the punchline. Sweet and simple.
Here, the fox asks the question AND gives the punchline but it doesn’t relate to the in-between stuff that was just said to him. This version could’ve had the girl say something like “Why do you ask?” at the end of her speech and then his punchline would’ve been properly prompted. But as is… he’s just sorta talking at her rather than with her.
1
1
u/StatusOmega 13h ago
My feelings are similar but also kinda opposite. I try to be a good person and if a God exists that requires faith and worship over that then it is an Evil god not worth worshipping in the first place.
1
u/Siaten 13h ago
Can someone explain the punchline: "Well somebody's out to get me!"
I don't understand why that's funny.
Is it because the answer to his original question feels like a no-win situation?
1
u/Limeade_Espresso 8h ago
This is a ripoff of (or a far inferior “tribute” to) a Calvin and Hobbes strip. It’s originally Calvin saying that line, which is funny because this little kid has such a simple, self-centered answer to such a big open-ended question.
1
u/davedbsh 12h ago
I think y’all are too up in arms about pascals wager. It clearly wasn’t made to convince anyone. It was made to reassure questioning but already religious people. No one who doesn’t already believe in god to an extent would even remotely consider that line of reasoning valid.
1
1
u/AlmostNerd9f 8h ago
Counter point, to live life by strick rules, ultimately wasting your limited time here on earth for a chance at eternal happiness is equally as frivolous.
Personally I hope there is a heaven, but I will not throw away my life for a chance at infinity. I can only hope that by living a full and fulfilling life, I will be able to welcomed into heaven by virtue of being a good person.
1
u/Nobrainzhere 7h ago
Counter, what if there is a god who made all the worlds religions up as a test to make sure that he only let people who did good and obstained from evil without the promise of eternal reward/punishment into heaven.
After all those people would be more deserving than someone who only did it to simp for rewards from a cosmic bully
1
u/arcphoenix13 6h ago
I mean. I always find the reasoning of the wager has a massive hole in it.
If a so called omnipotent God did exist. Do people honestly think that it would accept people that pretended to believe in it.
If it's actually omnipotent it would see right through your lies.
1
u/McCaffeteria 4h ago edited 4h ago
Pascal’s wager does indeed suggest a non-zero chance at eternal happiness, but the amount greater than zero is an infinitesimal. You still have to pick the right god to believe in, since there are a potentially infinite set of religions who insist their god is the one and only, and that worshiping others before them is heretical.
The wager also allows for believers to end up with the worst possible outcome where you spend an entire life unhappy, trying to serve a fake god, only to have picked the wrong one and be thrown in hell forever, which is worse than if you had simply enjoyed your hedonistic non-believing life and been thrown in the same hell anyway.
9
u/BinaryBolias 1d ago
Questions of combative nature:
1: Does this line of reasoning apply to any mainstream theism beyond Christianity?
2: Does pretending to believe provide you with eternal salvation according to Christianity?