But what if you're wrong...?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager for a couple of reasons but it does come with a side order of better health / longevity.
Natural selection?

Also, Xamonas Chegwé, you are assuming that the merciful deity punishes people who merely got the name wrong and who had the intention of honoring God to the best of their understanding or their parents understanding etc, etc.

I have a lot of time for agnostics and people of little or no faith and I enjoy debating theology with other religionists.

But anti-theists really get my attention because so many of them rather arrogantly demand proof that their existence is not the consequence of a Higher Being's will and who (by theological reckoning) is NOT actually obliged to do anything.

I sat down once and spent 3 hours trying to explain to a cockroach who I was and how powerful I was and how much I knew about the other side of this planet called earth because I've seen it and how there is so much more to the universe than cockroaches can possibly imagine.

You know what?

That cockroach acted as though I wasn't even there. Maybe it was a pantheist or deist cockroach. Maybe it didn't "detect" me clearly enough.

Lion (IRC)

This is not an answer to my post. I honestly can't even follow it. It lacks coherence and any kind of logical narrative,

Perhaps it made sense when you originally posted it over at RS. I would like to see if that is the case. Rachel, can you give me a link, please?

[rachelbean]

This is not an answer to my post. I honestly can't even follow it. It lacks coherence and any kind of logical narrative,

Perhaps it made sense when you originally posted it over at RS. I would like to see if that is the case. Rachel, can you give me a link, please?

Yeah, I mean it's a terrible argument no matter what, but at least when it was originally posted it was in the right context: http://www.rational-skepticism.org/gene ... tml#p83252

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This is not an answer to my post. I honestly can't even follow it. It lacks coherence and any kind of logical narrative,

Perhaps it made sense when you originally posted it over at RS. I would like to see if that is the case. Rachel, can you give me a link, please?

Yeah, I mean it's a terrible argument no matter what, but at least when it was originally posted it was in the right context: http://www.rational-skepticism.org/gene ... tml#p83252

She caught you, Lion. Right between the eyes. Too good an argument to waste, was it?

BTW, do you spend a lot of time talking to cockroaches? Or was that one 'special'?

[JimC]

I will accept that rather surprising event after my death, with equanimity, courtesy and a little mild eyeball rolling.

They do have gin in hell, don't they?

[charlou]

I will accept that rather surprising event after my death, with equanimity, courtesy and a little mild eyeball rolling.

They do have gin in hell, don't they?

Nah, you'll be stardust, matey. We'll drink to your memory, though. <--- umm imagine more sombre faces here

[Mung Bean]

Bolero, you'll probably never make any real dent in his programming but if you want to have a bit of fun try this. I found it several years ago and have always thought it was rather delightful.

The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

[Hermit]

strong arguments are not his forte. Blind faith, and a complete inability to see a logical, rational, well-supported argument when it's staring him in the face, on the other hand, he's really really good at.

He must be good at something. I mean, you married him, right?

More seriously, going by what you say about your husband, I don't really know why you see any purpose in asking us for help.

[JimC]

I will accept that rather surprising event after my death, with equanimity, courtesy and a little mild eyeball rolling.

They do have gin in hell, don't they?

Nah, you'll be stardust, matey. We'll drink to your memory, though. <--- umm imagine more sombre faces here

Wormfood in a compost heap I would prefer...

The "rather surprising" was my British (well, Dad was a Pom,,,) sense of understatement...

[Onomotopeia]

Bolero, you'll probably never make any real dent in his programming but if you want to have a bit of fun try this. I found it several years ago and have always thought it was rather delightful.

The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

My favorite anti-Pascal's-Wager. The short version: God will only let people into heaven who are morally courageous enough to not believe in him in spite of the peer pressure. Therefore you should not believe in God, just in case he exists. Believe and you might go to hell. Don't believe, and you are safe whether he exists or not.

The obvious and best response is still "what if you're wrong? I wish you would just accept Allah, and Mohammed who is his prophet. I can't bear the thought of you burning in hell." The fact is, there are a bunch of religions and even if one is right, he's still likely wrong. Maybe the best response to this situation is to actually figure out which religion is right (if any), eh?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Dawkins responded to this brilliantly in the video embedded in this thread. Of course, you are slightly more likely to burn in hell (if a deity exists) if you don't believe in God than if you do. But I am willing to make that small sacrifice in order to live a normal life.

[FedUpWithFaith]

It takes a real hardcore believer to think that God sends billions of people to Hell just for not believing in Jesus. I always tell people if I'm wrong I'll be in great company. Then I run off a list of atheists and agnostics (as well as good people of other faiths) like Einstein, 90% of all the people in the National Academy of Sciences, all sorts of artists, entertainers, etc. and say do you really think God is torturing all those people for eternity? The very idea of torturing somebody for eternity for any transgression is irrational and the sign of a cruel human fabrication. Furthermore, most Christian theologists argue based on original translations and other arguments that going to Hell simply means that we die and never know heaven or God. And if you do go to heaven, it isn't as "you" anyway. The whole free will argument Christians apply to man on Earth breaks down for mankind in Heaven. Either you won't want pussy anymore, there will be no pussy to covet, or fornicating is OK in Heaven and, if the later, then why the big deal on Earth? If it still isn't OK, that Heaven sounds worse than Hell. Who wants an eternity without pussy? Sounds like "Holy Matrimony".

[tattuchu]

...and I'm right? Hubby and I finished a recent argument about religion with him plaintively saying this (possibly as a segue into the subsequent "I love you and I don't want you to burn in hell for all eternity" makeout session).

Of course, I responded by pointing out that a "just in case" bet doesn't make up for a lack of evidence, and that belief can't be forced, but I was wondering ... I mean, have you ever had to respond to this? What did you say? Or what have you heard others say?

So what does he want you to do? Go through the motions? Pretend to believe? Does he not think his omniscient god could see right through that?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...and I'm right? Hubby and I finished a recent argument about religion with him plaintively saying this (possibly as a segue into the subsequent "I love you and I don't want you to burn in hell for all eternity" makeout session).

Of course, I responded by pointing out that a "just in case" bet doesn't make up for a lack of evidence, and that belief can't be forced, but I was wondering ... I mean, have you ever had to respond to this? What did you say? Or what have you heard others say?

So what does he want you to do? Go through the motions? Pretend to believe? Does he not think his omniscient god could see right through that?

That's the fatal flaw in Pascal's Wage, isn't it? You have to pretend to believe and, by implication, fool GOD into thinking that you actually do? Wow, God's pretty smart, ain't he?

[Bella Fortuna]

strong arguments are not his forte. Blind faith, and a complete inability to see a logical, rational, well-supported argument when it's staring him in the face, on the other hand, he's really really good at.

He must be good at something. I mean, you married him, right?

More seriously, going by what you say about your husband, I don't really know why you see any purpose in asking us for help.

Indeed - there's no debating or arguing or persuading someone who will always ultimately trump your valid, logical assertions with "Oh well, I just have faith that I'm right." You simply can't do anything with that sort of irrationality.

[tytalus]

It would be interesting to meet a believer who actually believed in this Wager after having the bet-hedging part explained to them. As it happens I was just reading part of Dawkins' God Delusion today that covers it.

Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest skepticism?

Does any believer really buy into this rhetoric? I'd be curious to know...if reasonable skeptics should fake it and essentially lie their way into heaven. What would that say about the ethical qualities of their god-concept?