Atheist? Let just say for one moment that you end up being wrong?

Question

I know that you truly think that your right about there being no God. But just suppose for one moment that you find out you were wrong do you think that you will regret the life thay you have lived and denying him?

Answer 1

If I were wrong it would be a bit late, don't you think?
Not that I'm concerned in the least...your biblical version is the least likely deity I could possibly fathom.

Answer 2

Christians? Let just say for one moment that you end up being wrong?
I know that you truly think that your right about there being the Christian God. But just suppose for one moment that you find out you were wrong and Muhammad is the real God do you think that you will regret the life that you have lived and denying him?

Answer 3

But of course I don't say there is no god. Just that there is no evidence to support the notion that there is. You may be right and indeed there is a god. So I can't be wrong can I since I don't know for a certainty. Only the faithful think they know for a certainty. So only the faithful can be wrong huh? And I'll put up the life I've lived up to yours any day. You see, I realize that Jesus Christ lived for about thirty five years around two thousand years ago and that he inspired many, me included, to live a moral and ethical life always showing compassion to others. But I don't think that the earth and the universe was created in six days about six thousand years ago as the bible suggests nor that he was the son of some god or that his mother was a virgin. Of course I would not ever say that the bible is wrong. Highly implausible though. And to believe such is delusional as psychiatry defines the term.

Answer 4

I am not atheist, but I have doubted, and decided to believe because I want to believe in God. If I had decided not to believe, had become and atheist, and found out later I was wrong, I would not regret the life I lived, because I can be a good and decent person without believing in God. I would, however, be surprised that I was wrong, and yes, I probably would regret that I had not believed in God.

Answer 5

I'm not an atheist, but I do deny the diety you're calling 'him'.

And I'll never regret doing so. I'll just figure it's one more of the awful truths of the Universe that I'm glad I never surrendered to if you happened to be right. If your god is the real thing I don't want anything to do with him dead, or alive.

Answer 6

This is pascal's wager- which has been well discussed.

But- to answer your question fairly, I'll admit that there is a possibility that a god exists. In my view, an exceptionally slim possibility, but nevertheless, there could be a god.

However- if there is a god, I couldn't possibly imagine that he'd be so self centered as to want to punish a person for not praying to him every day. So- no fear from this atheist.

Answer 7

I have lived a perfectly fine life. I have committed no serious crimes, I have not intentionally hurt anyone, I have raised a sane and intelligent family, I don't believe in invisible flying creatures invented by primitive superstitious Hebrew sheep herders.

I see nothing wrong with the above statement.

Answer 8

How many drinks have I had because of that question... Better check my intake.

To answer. I have nothing to regret.

And as for Pascal's wager, let's the high brows speak :
Wagering for God superdominates wagering against God: the worst outcome associated with wagering for God (status quo) is at least as good as the best outcome associated with wagering against God (status quo); and if God exists, the result of wagering for God is strictly better that the result of wagering against God. (The fact that the result is much better does not matter yet.) Pascal draws the conclusion at this point that rationality requires you to wager for God.

Without any assumption about your probability assignment to God's existence, the argument is invalid. Rationality does not require you to wager for God if you assign probability 0 to God existing. And Pascal does not explicitly rule this possibility out until a later passage, when he assumes that you assign positive probability to God's existence; yet this argument is presented as if it is self-contained. His claim that "[r]eason can decide nothing here" may suggest that Pascal regards this as a decision under uncertainty, which is to assume that you do not assign probability at all to God's existence. If that is a further premise, then the argument is valid; but that premise contradicts his subsequent assumption that you assign positive probability.

Answer 9

No I would have no regrets living the life I am currently leading as I am a good member of my community and my morals are just as good, and in some case better, than my religious counterparts. If it would send me to someplace like hell over something little like that I certainly ~wouldn't want~ to spend my eternity with it.

Answer 10

Dante's Divine Comedy

Answer 11

First, let me inform you that you too will miss out on much if you end up being wrong.

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 asseted 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 equations 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