Right, I mentioned that. Completely noninterventionist gods (among others) may exist.
(It’s not reasonable to believe in any specific noninterventionist god, mind you, because you are believing without information by definition.)
But who has the most to lose by being wrong in the belief of gods?
Atheists, lose their immortal existence if the Bible is right.
Religious people lose the time they spend worshipping god. - But, they gained a feeling of rightousness and goodness.
While the odds are in the favor of Atheists, the risk vs reward of being wrong…not so worth it.
But, I’m not one to believe in the bible anyway, so if the bible is right, I’m as screwed as the Atheists…
What is this? Pascal’s Wager Week on the Dope?
No, that argument has been refuted over and over again since it was made. It’s nothing more than a false dilemma; to point out one of the the obvious flaws, how do you know that by worshiping God you won’t offend Zeus and be cast into Tartarus? For that matter, how do you know if it isn’t only atheists that get good spots in the afterlife?
How do you know that? Because the Bible says so?
I’ll advance the hypothesis that the souls of atheists are eternal and those of believers will be consumed in a lake of, well, let’s say hydrofluoric acid. Is my hypothesis more valid or less valid than the Bible? If less, why?
How many times is Pascal’s Wager going to be ignored then rehashed, in this thread alone?
Dude. Read the thread.
This is just a false equivalence if you’re comparing “atheists” to “religious people.” There are lots of religions (or subdivisions therein) on the planet–many of which contend that you lose your immortal existence if you don’t believe in their faith.
So really, your argument should read (my changes in bold)
So which religion is it that the “risk vs reward of being wrong” is worth it, specifically?
Or are you arguing that people should observe all possible religions, to avoid the risk of being wrong?
Since you are making, and presumably, endorsing the argument that “the risk vs reward of being wrong… not so much worth it,” I assume you are in fact observing every single possible faith?
God values reason over everything else. Our lives here on Earth are a test. Because of that, ONLY atheists get to go to heaven (much to their surprise). All believers go to Hell.
That’s The Hamster King’s Wager. I can’t figure out why anybody would risk belief. If you believe and you’re right, you go to Hell. If you believe and you’re wrong you spend your whole life living a lie. It’s a lose/lose situation. The only safe course of action is atheism.
Or I could be messing with the overly rightous people who defend aetheism as if on some kind of religious crusade…
I have my own religion - one that can’t actually be wrong. But I don’t share much. I like my status as the only truly enlightened person 
As mentioned when discussing the odds - if the bible(or any holy book) is right, I’m screwed.
Atheism is under constant attack, what with it being the the minority position in a world of people who think it is evil. It needs to be defended.
My wager is that if the bible is right, that God isn’t a diety that I’d want to exist under, being as he’s an insecure, jealous, vindictive dictator who places as his highest priority that everyone suck up to and obey his every whim…and ‘be good people’ takes a distant second, and even then only if he wouldn’t rather you be killing in his name. So yeah…I think under such a god, immortal existence is the loser, with going to hell being only marginally worse than being the the state of trying to walk the knife’s edge and not get sent to hell after the fact.
There are nicer theorized dieties than the one in the bible, mind you, including the ones that most Christians believe in. But even then it’s rare to run across one who isn’t so petty as to want you to have a religion about him. And it’s even rarer for such a god to have a religion about him!
Most organized religions are evil, including organized aetheim.
As opposed to those people who defend religion, and who attack atheism because they are actually on a religious crusade? (as DT points out)
Can’t be wrong? Dude, tell me you’re not the guy who just criticised strong atheism as being irrational. I don’t care what you believe, solipsism might be true - we mostly ignore it because it’s boring, but it’s still a possibility and annihilates all absolute certaintly beyond “something exists”.
ETA: -and certain logially self-contratictory positions, like an omnimax god + evil.
I only defend religion if it helps me attack aetheism. I’m pretty much against each religion indivudually too.
Why don’t you just go ahead and tell us your beliefs on the subject at hand, o.k.? I’m not one for tolerating undeclared devil’s advocates, myself, especially when they aren’t above board about their intentions.
damnit you’ve attained enlightenment.
The only true religion is “Something exists”
Any attempts to define it, corrupt it and make it invalid.
It is spelled “atheism”. If you are having trouble spelling it(which I highly doubt), just cut and paste the correct spelling from elsewhere in this thread.
Great.
Yet another high school guru.
Nonsense - there is the added “religion” that “it really seems like my senses are portraying a reasonably consistent reality”. And from that, all science springs. And that’s pretty much the (soft) atheist position, since that observed reality does squat to inspire belief in gods, now that we’re past the “why does lighting strike people?” stage.