Which of the following wagers would you take, Pascal's Wager or Atheist's Wager and why?

Question

I'd take Atheist's Wager because of what it says is true.

Answer 1

Atheists' Wager:

Live as if there are no gods, enjoy life, and be a decent person. If there is indeed a just god, you will be rewarded. If there are no gods, you had a worthwhile life and that's the end of it. If there is an unjust god, then you're probably screwed anyway, whatever you do.

Answer 2

Oddly enough, if you actually read Pascal he starts his explanation of the wager explaining that it is impossible to know if God is real or not. This makes Pascals wager at best an agnostics wager. A believer would regard the question as resolved and not bother working out the cost/benefit analyses which is what the wager is about.

As an atheist who does not believe that God exists I am unlikely to bother working out the cost/benefit analysis on disbelieving in God either.

Answer 3

pascal's wager is like swiss cheese a million. fake dichotomy. the thoughts are not christianity or atheism that's the actually tens of hundreds of gods you'll be able to desire to have self belief in. so whether you knew for specific that one grew to become into the perfect god, you need to nonetheless assume to be incorrect with the aid of sheer risk. which defeats the full ingredient to the wager as that is thru (undesirable) layout meant to be the thank you to play the opportunities 2. it assumes god rewards concept. according to possibility he might choose an easy skeptic 3. it ignores value whilst alive. you do have some thing to lose, what in case you piss away the single life you're ever going to get chatting with an imaginary pal scoring factors for an imaginary afterlife? 4. it assumes you may rigidity your self to have self belief, which you will no longer. you the two have self belief or you do no longer. the wager is at perfect a fashion of feigning concept, yet in accordance to the comparable people who sell the wager, god is all understanding and as a result with the aid of his very nature he can't be tricked. omniscience precludes any sort of deception with the aid of definition. i think of they use it because of the fact they're already desperate that that is authentic, and that the wager is a form of secondary rationalisation. despite the fact that it would be thrilling to get some solutions from christians

Answer 4

Neither.
Both choices are unreasonable.

Pascal's Wager assumes a boolean scenario and thus fails at reality, when the possibilities are infinite.

The Atheist's Wager requires reliance on a benevolant lifestyle in order to work, and assumes it is that upon which they could be judged simply because they approve of that sort of thing.



Gimme Nature's Wager any day:
Live long, breed many and kill your opposition.... and you may leave a legacy that will last aeons. Refrain... and you will be lost the moment you hit the dust.

Answer 5

I'd go with Atheists. Pascal's Wager has been proven flawed:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

Answer 6

Take wagers based on what is observable.


1) We are all both physical and non-physical. You can touch your body but not your feelings.
We know some things, and think we understand them. We don't know other things.
2) Causes produce effects.
3) We are all equally children of the same universe.
That universe is constantly shifting and changing.

Those realities, taken together, form a solid basis for approaching life, and can be the source of personal renewal.

Answer 7

I took the atheist wager myself.

Answer 8

Pascal's wager is flawed in that it says you should follow a religion just because there's a chance that it is true, whilst in fact, with the Christian religion and most others, you must have actual belief in God rather than merely saying "Well he could exist", and thus you'd still go to hell following the wager.

The atheist's wager is flawed in that it states that God may judge you on your merits, whilst in fact with Christianity and most other religions, you will only go to heaven through belief of God as your savior and father and not through earthly deeds, so thus you will go to hell regardless of the existence of a god by following the atheist's wager as well.

Answer 9

I believe in God but not the Pascal's Wager. I believe we should live decent lives and I believe we should enjoy life - but I don't think we should live it frivolously either. We should tolerate people whether they believe in God or not, and I believe that God is just and so he will not send anyone to hell just because they were unable to believe in him. Whether you are an Atheist or a Theist, you should live a moral life. And so in the end, maybe it does not matter. Except that I personally think it is more fulfilling to have God in your life, but that's just me.

Answer 10

Never heard of the athiest's wager, so thanks for the clarification Icarus. Yep, athiests wager sounds like a great way to look at life. Probably because I'm an athiest...

Answer 11

some of the answers say that if there is a God, He will acknowledge my good behavior and I will be rewarded. Well that is wrong. Because if there is a God,(which there is) than it is clearly stated that the only way to God is through believing in Christ. Jesus said, "who ever denies me, I shall deny before the Father." So, if you choose to not believe, enjoy it while you can, because when death comes upon you, there shall be no reward.

I do not need to take either wager, because I believe, therefore my reward will be recieved.