A question to think about... atheists and hardcore christians?

Question

as a human being, i want to get some feedback about this. Blaise Pascal once wrote that believing in god is better than being athiest because, he said, what really do you have to gain by being athiest? Nothing really, but If you believe in god you at least have the chance to salvation and all that good stuff. BOTTOM LINE: "It is worthwhile to assume that god exists. If he does, then we win all; if he does not, we lose nothing. (Western Civilization, Spielvogel, Jackson J., p 457)"
What do you all think of this out there?

NOTE: when i say BELIEVING IN GOD, i include all religions, even agnosticism possibly

Answer 1

I'd rather live for something worth dying for that not live at all.

Pascal's explanation and statement is extremely well said.

Regardless of atheism or Christianity, both require faith yes? A confident faith is a suspicious faith but a wrestling faith is everything.

I am a Christian. It's what I chose to believe. But I certainly don't go around shoving it down people's throats.

Christianity and atheism wasn't meant for everyone.

Answer 2

Unless I have to give 10% of my income to the church.

Unless I have to not work, or even pick up sticks on Saturday.

Unless I have to pay for a trip to Mecca.

Unless I have to follow a load of rules made up by some bronze age goat herder.


If I have to do those then being a believer in a godless universe I will lose out compared to the atheist.

Secondly this is a potential argument if there is only one religion. But there is not.

So which one to pick? Hinduism? Judeism? Shinto? Islam? Christianity? And if I pick one, which is the right sect? Even if Christ was real and was the son of god there is no way that the full spectrum of Christians are all going to Heaven.

And finally it depends on there being a vindictive god. A god that does not care what you did and how you lived your life, but only that you worshipped him and him alone. Not that you actually believed in him, just that you worshipped him.

Think on that. If I told you thatZeus was the one you had to absolutely believe in, could you do it? Any fool can go though the motions of worship, but can you make yourself truely believe in something?


Other than being flawed, shallow in consideration and plain wrong, other than that it is a great argument for being a Jansenist.

Answer 3

Pascal's Wager (that's what that argument is called) is a well-known fallacy. Here's the main reason why:

Pascal's fatal flaw is assuming that:

1. God (the Christian god) exists, and
2. No god or gods of any kind exist

are the only two possibilities. Of course, that is not true. What about one of the other thousands of gods humans have believed in over the years? What if the Christian is wrong, not because there's no god, but because he's been worshipping the WRONG god?

Pascal never even entertained the POSSIBILITY that another god other than the Christian one may exist--pretty arrogant and ignorant, don't you think? The same can be said of anyone who looks at his argument and doesn't see this HUGE flaw--that person obviously is just as haughty and presumptuous.

In other words, Pascal's fallacy is that of the false dichotomy (choice of two). No one can possibly 'break it down' so that those are the only two possibilities, so everything he bases on that does not follow.

There are, of course, more problems with Pascal's Wager--I've only highlighted 'the big one.' For more information, check out this section of the Wikipedia article on the Wager (source 1).

Answer 4

You lose the years of your life that you spent worshiping a false idol and being brainwashed by the church. You lose the money you gave the church. The high tuition you paid for your children to get an inferior education at a catholic school. You lose a part of your freedom. To do what you want. To believe what you want.

Also if you believe in god just so you can go to heaven then you don't actually believe in god. Your only choosing to believe in him because your scared of what will happen if there is a god. I would rather take my chances and stand by my beliefs than cower in fear of something that doesn't exist.

Answer 5

First, it is impossible to practice Pascal's wager,(belief based on consequence of belief) for if you are in doubt enough to make such a wager, you are not actually in belief. "What one says" and "what one believes" are not the same. Despite this quick destruction, as a back-handed courtesy, we can revive Pascal via the following clarification, but only to destroy Pascal again several times later on:

Pascal's wager in belief (flawed as described above)
Pascal's wager in practice (regardless of belief, go through the motions of religion just in case)

Now that Pascal's back on prosthetic feet, let's serve the next dose.

Appeal to benefit of belief is in no way substantiation of belief. I don't feel the need to argue this.

But what about those who care less about the evidence issue and more about the benefit?

Pascals assumption that there is nothing to be lost by following the word of God, tipping the scales of benefit in theistic religion's favor. However, if god does not exist and therefore there is no heaven and hell, we can then abandon all morals and rules asserted by the word of God,(maybe you wouldn't but it is important to realize you could). One with the means could acquire all the wealth and fruit of the world one desired at the expense of anyone he chose, and never go to hell upon one's death. Given enough power, one could create a land of milk and honey here on earth for the term of one's life,(Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates) and secure it for one's children or loved ones via will. That is certainly something lost if the path of God is undertaken. Therefore Pascal's assumption of the equation's balance is way off. The degree of the balance will be subjective but, once again, Pascal goes down.

Morals and ethics may still be reinvented at any time without God, as they originally were.

All counter arguments invited -

Answer 6

true. however some of us dont feel like going to church or to not do some things simply cause somebody who hasnt been proven to exist says so. so yes we dont lose anything at the end, but in this life we waste some time going to some building every sunday and trying to decipher some book that probably wasnt really the word of god to begin with.

Answer 7

Sounds like sound advice to me.

It is just hard for people to put faith in something that is not tangible like the rest of the human world.

I do have one thing to say though, assuming God exists would most likely not grant you salvation. You have to BELIEVE

Answer 8

Well as an alien i would like to answer you;

You can't see or smell GOD but those who believe in GOD could feel it.You either feel it or not.Most humans start believing in GOD after they go through a near death experience, they claim they start to feel the presence of GOD.It is good to believe in something greater than life itself there is nothing wrong with that but you first have to believe in yourself my human friend.

Answer 9

I think it was one person's assumption that the world really runs according to his particular belief.

And IMO, even if a deity existed, how could any human made religion even suggest it could actually know the answers of what is right?

Answer 10

There's no indication that God is any more real than Odin or Zeus, that's why. No matter what you do, you're taking a hell of a chance, and if you don't have a reason to believe in something then you shouldn't believe in it just because someone threatens you with eternal torture.

Answer 11

My thinking is that if there is a God, he would say "don't pray to me until I've covered those African children who have "flies in their eyes". They're still out there, aren't they?
Think what you want but cover you butt in the mean time...God MUST have priorities, RIGHT?.........Once that problem is taken care of maybe THEN we can pray to win the lottery....Santa Clause and God have a lot in common if you really think of it.