What does a moral atheist have to lose anyway if Christianity would be true?

Question

Rev 20:13 talks about "White Throne Judgment", which in my views simply means this:

**When you accept Jesus into your heart, you win a ticket to Heaven, no matter what. It's a free ticket.
**When you don't accept Jesus, you'll go to the "White Throne Judgment" and God will judge you on your works, your deeds.

Whether my views are correct or not, doesn't even matter. There are two options: God is moral and accepts good people or God is amoral.

If there is a God, then the only two choices for us atheists are acceptance by a moral god or refusal by an immoral god.

Assuming that nobody wants to spend eternity with an immoral god, then if the second one is true, hell (i.e. far from the immoral god) is the better place to be...

And no, I'm not an atheist who "is afraid of hell, blah, blah blah"...I'm just tired of Pascal's Wager.

Answer 1

I agree with you. And I think we're ALL tired of Pascal's Wager.

Except the Fundies. Every hour on the hour they pop that out like it's the cleverest thing they've ever come up with.

Answer 2

According to Pascal, a finite gain or loss is, mathematically, negligible compared to infinite gain or loss. Thus, in his eyes, it was better to believe in God than not to believe in God. Seems solid, but was he right?

Well, Pascal made a lot of assumptions based on the Scripture as he himself interpreted it, not considering other possibilities. For instance, he assumes his God is the only God. But what if God happens to be Shiva or Jhw, or Allah or some ancient God, or even multiple Gods? Let's assume there is only the Christian God, then how likely is it that God punishes the skeptics, the non-believers, even though they have lived a righteous life? God is loving, right? Perhaps there's a God who actually punishes the blind believers - people who only believe because they want to go to heaven, never questioning anything the church says. I say, it would be likely... if God does exist. If we put all these possibilities, and more, in consideration in the Wager, we can perhaps conclude that it's better to believe in any deity granting eternal reward and eternal suffering. But, doesn't the second commandment read: "You shall have no other gods besides Me?" Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." - absolute devotion to one God. The same is to be said for Judaism, Islam and many other world religions. Thus, belief in any of these religions does not make sense when fitted to Pascal's Wager.

More striking is Catholicism: by showing repentance and returning to God's vineyards, even just before death, all your sins are forgiven and you are granted eternal life in heaven. Heck, if Hitler showed repentance and did not commit suicide (the final and thus eternal sin) he could be playing cards in heaven according to the Catholic dogma.

There are many other arguments that turn Pascal's Wager in less than "I know you are, but what am I" uttered by a child, but I wanted to finish with one I often use as an argument, though not a good one, myself: Denominations. What if you spend your entire life as a good Mormon, never drinking, always struggling to stay on God's path, and then you die. You reach the gate of heaven, but Saint Peter refuses to open the golden gates to the paradise. "Why?" you ask him while you start sobbing. "I've always lived a righteous and faithful life!" And, Saint Peter answers: "Don't you know? The Catholics were right all along."

Not to mention there's a lot of other gods out there in a lot of different religions other then Christianity. So what if your Christians picked the wrong god? What if Odin is real and Jesus isn't? Then where does that leave you. Then you'll be screwed.

Answer 3

The answer that I see again and again to this question is one that we don't accept. It says that man on his own can do no good, that only God is good. Therefore, this question would be moot. It doesn't necessarily mean that God is amoral. It means that God has another requirement for morality that we don't agree with.

Even if you accept that there is a God and there is an afterlife, it really just comes down to a roll of the dice to see what'll get you into heaven.

Answer 4

Well, there are other options if you think out of the box and especially if we're not bound here by Christian mythology.

God needn't be moral or immoral for example. He could be just like us; a guy trying to do his best and sometimes he gets it right and sometimes he gets it wrong.

The idea that God (or a god) must be perfect to have created Earth ... I don't see why. After all, Earth isn't perfect, is it?

Answer 5

Pascal did say what do you have to lose. The way your question is asked, and your opinon, you have your life to lose. Jesus said He was the only way to Heaven. The Bible says you can't get to Heaven by good works. So you're not afraid of Hell today. I wonder if your opinon will change in 50 years?

I'm sure you're not always being asked about Pascal's wager. I'm sure there's not one person here in a hundred who has any idea what the wager was. So I'm sure you're not that tired of it. But take his wager, what do you have to lose?

Answer 6

we could see, i'm make a itemizing for you. a million) Freedom to make my own selections on matters like gay marriage and abortion 2) I should not be gaining know-how of the certainty 3) I should not be genuine to my heart 4) there is no evidence of God 5)To many people have used God as an excuse for doing stupid issues 6) I should not be enable to chosen what books i will examine and make my own judgements no remember if or no longer they are good for myself. i do no longer think in christianty because of the fact it has no longer something to furnish me. i might rather comprehend the actual certainty and think of roughly it for myself than have somebody tell me what I could desire to have faith. I additionally locate it ridiculous to base my existence around a e book written quite a few thousand years in the past while people believed the international replaced into flat, the sunlight revolved around the earth and that the sunlight replaced into created from coal. does not that propose it's time to hold issues into the twenty first century? Edit; a million) what approximately pedofiles?? They made thier very own selections. What with regards to the individuals who kill gays asserting it rather is against god? 2)what certainty? understanding youll rot once you die? particularly that its a e book 3) I should not be genuine to my heart--egocentric egocentric? No, killing people because of the fact they do no longer trust your faith is egocentric. 4) i comprehend that, i didnt ask you to have faith in Him Then what are you asking me to do? fake? it particularly is effective egocentric of you. 5)theyre sinners every physique could properly be a sinner. 6) wtf? EX; Christians burning Harry Potter books becaus eit teaches Wicca. It does not. that's a fictional e book. All I discovered from that's that zealots are many times idiots. maybe it particularly is why people are banning it.......

Answer 7

I don't know about the white throne thing but I agree with your completely. If god is moral then he will judge us on are actions and on our character. To use blind faith as the primary criteria is silly.

Answer 8

Exactly. I have often said that if I'm wrong, and God doesn't want me, then I wouldn't have wanted to spend eternity with him anyway. I have also said that I would rather go to hell than kiss invisible *** all my life.

Answer 9

If christianity was to be true, an atheist would probably be dammed for eternity because of not accepting.
UNLESS
if what you said was true (the white throne judgement)

btw, im an atheist

Answer 10

agreed. pascals wager in all its forms is a pain in the rear.