Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain

The following is based on the logical argument posited by Blaise Pascal, a mathematician and physicist, and is known as Pascal’s Wager.

According to the Bible, if a person believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior, that person is saved forever and gets everlasting life that is so incredible it cannot be described. Of course that is an infinite reward.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But for those who never believe and trust in Jesus Christ as Saviour, when they die they receive an infinite punishment.

Now examine what kind of loss an atheist or agnostic is risking if wrong and what reward they receive if right.

First consider the saved Christian. Assume that the Christian is right. Now the Christian believes that he will receive everlasting bliss in heaven with Jesus Christ. If he is right, he will indeed receive that. The Christian dies happy knowing that is what will happen.

If on the other hand the atheist is correct, the Christian still dies happy with his belief. He never finds out he is wrong and in fact receives everlasting bliss but of a different kind.

So the Christian never loses infinitely. He never even knows he was wrong. He dies happy either way. He does not risk infinite loss. In fact, he could receive an infinite reward.

Now consider the atheist or agnostic. Assume that the atheist is correct. The atheist or agnostic dies and there is no everlasting punishment. He then gets his bliss, everlasting nothingness without God. But he cannot even gloat on being right.

If on the other hand the saved Christian is correct, the atheist or agnostic losses out on an everlasting reward. Instead he receives an everlasting punishment.

Now to risk such eternal loss for no eternal gain, you would want almost absolute proof that the atheist is right. But it is logically impossible to pose the absolute negation of a supreme being. In fact, the atheist will refuse to even accept the burden of proof, because he knows that he cannot prove his infinite negation. But with out absolute proof, the atheist or agnostic is risky everlasting loss for no everlasting reward.

If absolute proof is impossible, maybe calculating the odds against the existence of God may work. But any odds less that a trillion to one would be too risky. Even longer odds would too risky. An analysis of the facts will show the odds are greatly against the atheist being correct.

So, can I assume you also believe in Allah just in case he is the true god?

Pascal's wager is, and always will be, utter bullshit. It is the last, desperate attempt for the theist with no convincing argument to try coerce others into their beliefs through fear. Anyone that thinks this is a good argument is a lost cause.

Pascal's wager? Is that the best you can do? I hate to break it to you buddy, but you're going to hell for being a shitty apologist.

Blah blah blah....man I'm sick of hearing this same old tired argument.

It is a pretty shallow approach to AvT but Pascal's wager gets a lot of people thinking about the God Conclusion who otherwise might remain apathetic.
Once they START thinking more seriously then they leave Pascal's wager behind.

SBGTF,

So you think god is so stupid he couldn't see through someone just pretending to believe in order to cover his ass just in case he was real?

Assuming god wouldn't be so easily fooled, one actually has to believe shit. You can't "Make" yourself believe something you know isn't true, you can only "pretend."

No heaven or hell? In that case EVERYONE shares the same terminal outcome.
Given the existence of heaven and hell, it stands to reason that NOT EVERYONE shares the same existential boarding pass and seat allocation.
This is simple logic- not apologetics.

(October 1, 2013 at 7:04 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If absolute proof is impossible, maybe calculating the odds against the existence of God may work. But any odds less that a trillion to one would be too risky. Even longer odds would too risky. An analysis of the facts will show the odds are greatly against the atheist being correct.

Huh? Calculating the odds against the existence of God? What the fuck does that even mean? This isn't craps. "An analysis of the facts will show the odds are greatly against the atheist being correct"? Really? Am I supposed to take your word for it? Obviously so since you haven't bothered to actually make this analysis.

As others have said, Pascal's Wager is a transparently bad argument. The Muslim can use it as justifiably (that is to say, not at all) as the Christian. And of course you could both be wrong: What if God values and rewards/condemns not on the basis of silly superstitions and bad reasoning but on the basis of intellectual integrity? Then, my friend, you are screwed.

The Christian's last stand: when all else fails, threaten them with Hell. Pathetic.

Actually he'll isn't a threat - it's a menu option.

"Given the existence of heaven and hell,...."

Which it isn't - a given I mean.

So given the lack of existence of Heaven and Hell I can tell God to get himself butt-fucked by Satan and fear no retribution.