Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Philosophy: Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Good" is relative to the religion. Various religions have held it is good to have sex with strangers for money, smash babies to death on rocks, and kill people who do not believe in that particular religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.182.209 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]