Atheists Wager

[Gooders1002]

This Is as a more realistic version of Blaise Pascal’s Wager.
Atheists Wager
What are your thoughts?
It is a win/win for everybody

[CliveStaples]

What is a "good" life? What does it mean to make a place "better"?

[Gooders1002]

What is a "good" life? What does it mean to make a place "better"?

Well being kind and helpful, try and cause more overall good than harm. Helping your fellow man and animals and not being (for lack of better description) cunt. Basically be a positive outcome than a negative one.

[Cyberman]

Indeed, it is much more realistic and achievable than Pascal's Folly. It's geared towards a human level at which we all operate, rather than surrendering your life to some promised fairyland cartoon.

If I may, I've got a slightly more comprehensive version I cribbed from somewhere; fortuitously as it happens, as the site seems to have evaporated:

Pascal’s Wager is well known to many atheists. On the internet, it is probably the single most common argument heard from Christians, and the regulars of newsgroups such as alt.atheism feel cheated if a week goes by without someone bringing it up (this rarely happens), only to be shot down in flames (this always happens). This article was written specifically to deal with it.

Pascal’s Wager is quite simple and appears, superficially, to be a strong and compelling argument for theism. However, a little close scrutiny soon reveals the flawed logic and reasoning behind it, which actually makes it one of the weakest arguments a theist could come up with.

The Wager

Pascal’s Wager can be presented in many different forms, usually something like this:

“If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.”

Alternatively:

“It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way.”

It amounts to hedging your bets. The consequences upon your death are shown here:

God exists
I believe: Go To Heaven
I do not believe: Burn In Hell!

God does not exist
I believe: Nothing
I do not believe: Nothing

The worst case for the theist is no afterlife, the worst case for the atheist is an eternity in Hell. You can see why this appears to be a potentially convincing argument - it is sensible to choose the least-worst case.

The flaws

The most obvious problems with Pascal’s Wager are:

• How do you know which god to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the ‘Avoiding the wrong Hell problem.’ If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal’s Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ is supposed to have said, “I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me.” [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?

• God is surely not stupid. Won’t it know that you’re just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a god simply out of convenience?

• If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don’t want to hear your Good News.

• Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you’re up to. Also, many gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won’t do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm ‘n’ fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position: if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.

• Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It’s not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don’t just say it’s in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any god worth its salt would obviously see straight through that.

• It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying “Believe in my God or He’ll send you to Hell” (in fact, this is often the form in which it is presented). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a god to send him there in the first place. If you don’t believe in Hell anyway, it’s not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying “If you don’t start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you’re sleeping.” Who would be worried by that?

• It is often self-refuting, depending on the person’s description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say “Believe in God, or you’ll... erm... go to Heaven anyway.” In such a case, it doesn’t make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.
Pascal’s Wager is hopelessly flawed. It sounds good at first, but poke it with the spike of reason and it quickly deflates, letting out all the hot air.

An alternative - The Atheist’s Wager

This seems to be much more reasonable, both for atheists and for theists:

“It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, it will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in it.”
(And if the god is not benevolent, it’s gonna git ya whatever you do!)

This can be shown as:

God exists
I believe: Go To Heaven because you believed
I do not believe: Go To Heaven because you’re a good person

God does not exist
I believe: Wasted life praying etc.
I do not believe: Made the world a better place

Has anyone got the number for Pascal’s Pager?

[CliveStaples]

Well being kind and helpful, try and cause more overall good than harm. Helping your fellow man and animals and not being (for lack of better description) cunt. Basically be a positive outcome than a negative one.

How do you know that being kind and helpful is "good"? Can you cite a scientific experiment whose outcome demonstrated that being kind and helpful is "good"?

Why should you prefer "positive" outcomes to "negative" ones?

[Gooders1002]

Well being kind and helpful, try and cause more overall good than harm. Helping your fellow man and animals and not being (for lack of better description) cunt. Basically be a positive outcome than a negative one.

How do you know that being kind and helpful is "good"? Can you cite a scientific experiment whose outcome demonstrated that being kind and helpful is "good"?

I am talking about after all, being Kind and given somebody money to buy drugs is of course a bad thing, it all about being relive.
When I say Good: It means helping people improve their life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: feeding the homeless or cheering somebody up/
When it talks about being bad: It means you're having a negative effect on somebody's life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: Stealing something or hurting somebody because you can.

Why should you prefer "positive" outcomes to "negative" ones?

Do you seriously want me to answer that? Would you like a negative outcome happen to you?

[CliveStaples]

I am talking about after all, being Kind and given somebody money to buy drugs is of course a bad thing, it all about being relive.
When I say Good: It means helping people improve their life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: feeding the homeless or cheering somebody up/
When it talks about being bad: It means you're having a negative effect on somebody's life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: Stealing something or hurting somebody because you can.

Right, but how do you know that you should do "Good" things and refrain from doing "bad" things? How do you know that you're not supposed to steal or hurt others?

Remember, atheists rely only on evidence. What scientific proof do you have that you shouldn't hurt others?

Do you seriously want me to answer that? Would you like a negative outcome happen to you?

Probably not, but I might also want to steal my neighbor's car. I might want not to get caught by the police; I might want to kill or intimidate any witnesses into remaining silent.

And what does it matter what I would like to happen to myself?

[Gooders1002]

I am talking about after all, being Kind and given somebody money to buy drugs is of course a bad thing, it all about being relive.
When I say Good: It means helping people improve their life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: feeding the homeless or cheering somebody up/
When it talks about being bad: It means you're having a negative effect on somebody's life in some way (even if it's only temporary). Example: Stealing something or hurting somebody because you can.

Right, but how do you know that you should do "Good" things and refrain from doing "bad" things? How do you know that you're not supposed to steal or hurt others?

Remember, atheists rely only on evidence. What scientific proof do you have that you shouldn't hurt others?

Do you seriously want me to answer that? Would you like a negative outcome happen to you?

Probably not, but I might also want to steal my neighbor's car. I might want not to get caught by the police; I might want to kill or intimidate any witnesses into remaining silent.

And what does it matter what I would like to happen to myself?

Firstly this stuff cannot be explained by science yet, we're working on it.
This all boils down to the golden rule, do on to others which you would do to yourself. Unless your psychotic, would you want some to steal your stuff or hurt you? I know Good and Evil are subjective (and requires a whole other debate) but for the sack of argument.
Good is defined: Aiding somebody's freedom and well-being.
Evil is Defined: Hindering somebody's freedom and well-being.

[CliveStaples]

Firstly this stuff cannot be explained by science yet, we're working on it.
This all boils down to the golden rule, do on to others which you would do to yourself. Unless your psychotic, would you want some to steal your stuff or hurt you? I know Good and Evil are subjective (and requires a whole other debate) but for the sack of argument.
Good is defined: Aiding somebody's freedom and well-being.
Evil is Defined: Hindering somebody's freedom and well-being.

How do you know that you should do Good, rather than Evil? How do you know that "You should do Evil" is false?

[LastPoet]

Clive really wants his god to be the staple of morality

At any rate, these "wagers" don't really have an impact on the real world. Most people don't know what Pascal's wager is, let alone this "atheist wager". I put quotes on that because atheism does not provide any morality standards, its just the refusal of that magical being some people are poised to believe.