Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain

[Brian37]

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.

Dressed up Pascal's wager. Repackage a skunk of an argument, wrap it in elaborate tripe, it is still a skunk.

Still has the problem of "which one" because other people have imaginary sky daddy pet god claims too.

Still is a naked assertion.

Still has the problem with infinite regress.

AND What makes you think even if your fictional sky daddy were real, would make us want to worship him?

I don't kiss the ass of selfish narcissists nor do I bow to threats.

Cochroaches outnumber humans. Bacteria outnumber humans. For every sperm that makes a baby millions more do nothing. 56 million people worldwide DIE every year from everything from disease, famine, crime and war. In a decade that is half a billion people.

You'd have us believe with all the bad shit that happens in reality, there is a cosmic security guard promising to keep us safe? These are not the actions of someone who knows what they are doing and can keep their promises. These are the actions of ineptness or malicious or both.

The only option to your fictional sky daddy claim is that both the bad shit and good shit in life are a result of nature, not a god, not yours, not any.