Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain

[xpastor]

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....

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.

I first encountered Pascal's wager almost 50 years ago when I was a Christian. Even then I thought it was flawed.

Pascal is just basing his argument on mathematical odds with no other considerations. It is quite true that if you are playing poker and the odds are 5-1 against your hand winning, but the pot is at least 6 times greater than your bet, generally speaking you should stay in the game. If you always play the odds like that, you will win more than you lose.

BUT what if your bet is for all you have, something you cannot afford to lose? I live near a large casino, and I frequently hear rumors about someone cutting his throat in their parking lot. Poor sod mortgaged the house and bet everything he had. It doesn't matter if he lost $20 thousand or $20 million. It was all he had.

This life, so far as we know is all we have. Don't pretend that being a Christian brings you unalloyed happiness in this life. There's the matter of policing your thoughts if you have doubts. Or feeling guilty if you appreciate a beautiful woman and your eye lingers on her cleavage. Adultery in your heart, you know. Or feeling guilty about a zillion other things.

I'm moderately comfortable, but I wish that instead of tithing I had put a good part of that money into retirement savings and the rest into a big trip to Europe.

My point is this: if you spend your whole life fighting your natural inclinations, then you've blown all that you had on Pascal's wager.

That's more or less the argument I made as an undergrad, with a few additions as a result of being older and wiser. like the point about retirement savings.

At this point in my life I would add a further argument. You need some facts besides the size of the pot on which to base a bet. Like, are you holding a full house? How likely is that to win?

The facts are all against the existence even of a generic God. The many "design flaws" in organisms render any kind of intelligent design extremely unlikely.

If you go for the biblical God, he's even more unlikely since all you have to make your case is that crazy, self-contradictory anthology of ancient superstitions.

[max-greece]

I've been thinking about the title of this thread: Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain, except a grasp on reality.

[Cyberman]

There are many more than 4. Whatever will you do if you arrive at Valhalla and Odin wants to know why you did not die with a sword in your hand?

I wish I could see his face when he gets to the Purry Gates and finds Ceiling Cat there waiting to pwn him.

[Minimalist]

Ah!

[Doubting Thomas]

Xpastor's analogy is a good one, except that religion is like four people playing poker with no cards, and they're all bluffing to each other about holding a royal flush.

[Kayenneh]

The atheist or agnostic is still risking infinite loss

What bloody loss? What you seem to fail to comprehend is even though you were able to give decent proof that your god is the only one, that nearly no one here wants to a) worship your wanker of a god or b) spend eternity in the company of its sanctimonious followers in (the potential) afterlife.

[Faith No More]

The idea that Pascal's wager involves no risk is absurd.

What's more of a risk than wasting the only life you get based on superstition?

[Cyberman]

It's worse than superstition, actually. He's arguing that we waste the only life we know for certain we're going to get in fear of what a shitty story tells him might happen after it ends.

It's just as silly as going to a party and spending the entire damn time worrying about vampires getting you on the walk back home.

[Simon Moon]

I certainly agree with you on that.

But it does make sense to investigate if God exists.

How much time do you spend investigating the existence of the 1000's of gods you don't believe in?

How much time do you spend worrying about the other god's hells? How much threat do you feel from the Hindu hell (Naraka) or the Islam hell (Jahanim)?

That is the point of my use of Pascal's wager.

There is no point to PW. It is fallacious on every level.

I will state an argument for the God of the Holy Bible.

I'll bet it is totally new and unique and none of us have ever heard it before. I'm sure we will all be 'wowed' by the logical validity and soundness of it.

Some atheists and agnostics do believe for real in Jesus Christ.

Most atheists believe there was a probably a historical Yeshua that the Biblical character is based partially on.

The 'Christ' part is a supernatural claim that is unsupported by evidence or reasoned argument.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The idea that Pascal's wager involves no risk is absurd.

What's more of a risk than wasting the only life you get based on superstition?

Well you do have a point that in this world the Christian may be wasting his life if he is wrong. But most Christians live fairly good, happy lives so I am not sure it is so bad.

But the possible infinite loss of the atheist and agnostic may not be worth the imagined temporary gain in this life.