Are Athiests missing the opportunity of a lifetime?

Question

OK, I think we can all agree on two points first. Even if you disagree, give me the benefit of the doubt, please.

1. We cannot prove there is a God. Saying "I have faith in God" does not count, because it is not evidence.

2. We cannot prove there is not a God. Saying "evolution is proof" does not count, because God could have started evolution. (Which I believe). The entire idea of God is that His existence cannot be proven by men.

Anyway, I don't think many Athiests out there have ever heard of Pascal's Wager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

It says, simply, that if you were a gambling person, you should bet on the existence of God, every time. Because then, you are always betting on an infinite reward.

If you bet on God and win, you get infinity years in Heaven.
If you bet on God, and there is no God, you only lose 80 years of partying lifestyle.
If you bet against God, and there IS a God, you get infinity years in hell.
If you bet against God, and there is no God, you get 80 years of a partying lifestyle.

If you would give someone in Vegas odds of 80 to infinity, they would take it every time. So, in essence, if you dismiss the idea of God, you are betting on a bad bet every time.

If you could put down an $80 bet that the Texans would win the Super Bowl, and the bet would pay out $80 Billion, wouldn’t you take the bet every year? You can’t pass up those kinds of odds. And that’s only $80 Billion, which is less than infinity.

I will not deny that there is a small chance God does not exist, but it is not worth betting for. Just a thought.

Answer 1

I think most atheists know about pascal's wager.

Unfortunately, it is flawed.

It doesn't tell you which god to believe in. You may be sincerely praying your heart out to Jesus but what if the Hindus are right? Then you are as wrong as the atheists, aren't you.

Answer 2

I think almost every atheist has heard of Pascal's wager, and dismissed it as hogwash because of any number of erroneous assumptions in the premise. There are several other possibilities that may provide the same infinite reward with a 'lower bet'.

If you bet against God, and God forgives you, you get 80 years of partying lifestyle, AND infinite years in Heaven.

If you bet on God, and it's actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Buddha, or Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Banjo the Sock Puppet, or Amateratsu, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster, or any of a million other deities man has invented, then you lose the happiness on Earth that could have been yours, AND you get infinity in hell.

If you don't believe in God, but cynically claim you do in order to take advantage of Pascal's wager (or because your parents would be angry, or whatever reason you deny your lack of faith), it seems more likely to me that God would punish hypocrisy over someone who was intellectually honest with themselves.

So if you had the chance to lay down $0 and still recieve that $80 billion, wouldn't that be an even better bet?

I couldn't respect anyone who based their theology on a projected profit/loss basis.

Answer 3

Sorry, most of us *have* heard of Pascal's wager -- and we won't take it. It's a sucker bet.

You mention a "small chance god does not exist" -- you have it exactly backwards.
There is NO evidence of any kind that is testable, repeatable, verifiable that there is any kind of god at all. None. Not a single piece of evidence to even suggest that one exists.
There is, however, an overwhelming avalanche of repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence that shows there is no need for any kind of god -- that the universe didn't need one to come into being, nor our solar system, nor our earth, nor life on this planet, nor humans. All of those things have perfectly natural explanations (most of which is testable and verifiable) that don't require any supernatural intervention from "god" at all.

So given the evidence, the odds that there IS a god are infinitely small. The odds that there ISN'T one are quite good. Pascal was a man of his times, before we had the 400+ years of discoveries since he lived. At his time, his wager might have seemed reasonable...today it's silly.

Besides, unlike a $1 lottery ticket, the price one has to pay to make this "wager" is way too high to justify the possible outcome. I can't give up reason and logic to "bet" on a god whose existence is incredibly improbable. That's just too high a price. Doesn't have anything to do with "partying lifestyle" (where did you get that idea?) -- it has to do with intellect, reason, and true knowledge over superstition, myth, and ignorance.


Peace.

Answer 4

Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are: the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in Christian theology, or God does not exist.

The wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God (or gods) who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith.

The wager, out of context, assumes that Christianity is the only religion which claims that a person will be judged, condemned, and punished by God if that person does not believe. However, there are other religions which also claim that God will judge, condemn, and punish people who do not believe in him and their religion. They include Islam, and some, but not all, denominations of Hinduism.

The wager is not an argument for the existence of God, but for the prudence of having a belief in the existence of God - quite a different thing. Indeed, if it is the case that there is in fact no God, the wager is an argument that it is better to believe an untruth.

Another common argument against the wager is that if a person is uncertain whether a particular religion is true and the god of that religion is real, but that person still "believes" in them because of the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment, then that belief is not a true valid belief or a true faith in that religion and its god.

Answer 5

"Pascal's Wager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pascal%27s_...

It says, simply, that if you were a gambling person, you should bet on the existence of God, every time. Because then, you are always betting on an infinite reward."

If you "believe" to hedge a bet, then you don't really BELIEVE, you are simply hedging your bet. Don't you think a god would know the difference? Since the Christian god punishes those who don't TRULY believe, Pascal's Wager will only have you spending your life hedging your bet and ending up in "hell" anyway.

Hedging your bet is a STUPID reason to follow a god.
It means you only "believe" because you are scared not to.
That's the same reason you give your wallet to a mugger.

NO ONE should spend his existence honoring a god he doesn't truly believe in. That's a pitiable waste.

I have a better suggestion- Spend your life being TRUE to your heart and what you know is right, and live your life with honor and courage, and your spirituality will find you the true path for you.

It's what you DO that matters, not what you believe.

Answer 6

No, I'm having the time of my life-great job, great friends, able to travel, live comfortably, no stress, you get the picture.

No, I wouldn't take the bet, even if it was fact that God exists. I could never support, worship, or believe in anything that justifies hate of any sort. It would make me a complete hypocrite with my belief system, which is really the Golden Rule-"Do Unto Others...." I do my best to be kind and polite, except for when I'm on Y! Answers (I blow up sometimes).

That being said, I don't frown on other's beliefs, unless they follow mongrel dogs like Falwell, Robertson, assorted Mullahs, etc.

I think that people who focus on trying to change those around them are the ones that really miss out on a great life-all that stress because someone doesn't believe in the same things as they do!

If someone is nice, decent, trustworthy, and kind, does their beliefs, if different, really matter? It seems that person I just described has found the best enlightenment there is.

Answer 7

Pascal's Wager is rolled out at least four times a day. You're #3 today.

It is seriously flawed. Blaise Pascal himself admitted it.


And yes, I do have a proof there is no deity by any name or description and no time I posted it could anyone find a flaw in it, so I stopped messing with it.

I know for an absolute mathematically proven fact that there is no deity.

So the only opportunity I'm 'missing' is the lies of a religion. I'll pass.

Answer 8

Unfortunately I don't bet. It is a principle in logic that if you start with a false assumption the result is always true. Your second statement that you/we cannot prove that God exist and that is the etire idea of God is false. The basis of faith is that you beleive in what is not proven, this doen't mean that God can not be proven.

Most non gamblers would consider spending $80 on the long shot of $80 billion a waste of money.

Answer 9

I am a Christian. Pascals Wager is insulting to God and to humanity. Do you honestly think if someone actually said, "Gee, Mr. I Hate Hippies....how can I refuse? With odds like that!" that there would really be a transformation in their hearts? Belief in and acceptance of God's Sovreignty are matters of faith and not just taking out a fire insurance policy. God will not be mocked!
Also, I just read your next to last sentence. It saddened me. Do you really know the Lord if you would actually suggest that there's a SMALL CHANCE He doesn't exist??? You need to search your heart and seek God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you if you really feel this way.

Answer 10

Atheists aren't missing out on anything.

1. I agree that having "faith" that something is true doesn't make it any more likely to be true. It doesn't demonstrate the existence of any god.

2. There is plenty of evidence that gods are man-made. You only have to look into the history of religions to see that. You can also look into human psychology to see how we're biased towards making stuff like that up.

As for Pascal's Wager, I haven't met an atheist yet who hasn't had that stupid fallacy thrown at them. That fallacy is a classic example of the type called "bifurication" (or perhaps in this case, quadfurication). Basically, the argument claims a fixed number of scenarios and builds an argument on that claim.

In your case, you gave four scenarios:
If you bet on God and win, you get infinity years in Heaven.
If you bet on God, and there is no God, you only lose 80 years of partying lifestyle.
If you bet against God, and there IS a God, you get infinity years in hell.
If you bet against God, and there is no God, you get 80 years of a partying lifestyle

But you ignored an infinite number of other scenarios...
If you bet on God, and Woden exists, you get infinity years of torture (assuming Woden hates Chrsitians).
If you bet against God, and a god exists that hates sheep who follow people without thinking, it might really like that atheists think for themselves. In that case, Christians get tortured forever and atheists get infinite rewards.

You also don't take into account that if you bet on God and he doesn't exist, you waste a large part of the finite life you have on superstition.

In addition, you leave out the largest hole in the argument.... You can't bet on God. Sorry, but if I'm not convinced that a god exists, I can't just one day say, "Ok, let me try believing that a god exists". It doesn't work that way. Either I'm convinced or I'm not convinced. So, if a god exists, it is up to him whether he tries to convince me that he exists or not. I really have no say in the matter. I can choose to study various religions, but I can't choose to be convinced by any of them.

Answer 11

"Anyway, I don't think many Athiests out there have ever heard of Pascal's Wager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pascal%27s_.."

LMFAO!

Sadly, you will never know just how hilarious that comment was. This has to be the funniest thing I've seen on Y!A in weeks.

I think that if atheists stopped thinking entirely, it'd still take believers 2000 years to catch up.