http://exreligious.com/what-if-you-are-wrong.html
Christians Especially, Think Atheists Risk Damnation
It is a tired old argument, many religious people, christians mostly, think that atheists take a GIANT risk in denying the "holy spirit" and NOT believing in god or jesus. The biggest most common argument we atheists hear, is "what if you are wrong?". They say, if "we" are right, we risk nothing. But they say that atheists risk it ALL by not believing. This is commonly referred to as "Pascal's Wager". Lets take a closer look at this superstitious belief.
The whole meat and teeth of the wager, is that if you do believe, you risk nothing, since you have the bases covered. However, it is a total dead end, and poor logic, and a flawed wager. Pascal's wager is just plain foolish for the following reasons:
The best reason "what if you are wrong" does not work or make sense
The number one reason, that pascal's wager is flawed is that MOST, if not all main stream religions state that you cannot have more then one religion. Well, that means that if judaism, islam or christianity is "right" then you are DOOMED to hell because of the fact you cannot join ALL religions and still follow all the religion's rules. In christianity, as well as islam, there are also sects that will claim other branches of the SAME religion are "wrong" and those following them are doomed to hell!
Here is a good youtube explaining the folly of Pascal's Wager:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8
Take protestant vs catholics. The catholics believe that protestants are going to "hell" and baptists think the same thing.
So now you not only "have" to join all of the religions out there, you must ALSO join all the sub-sects of each one AND follow their rules, which is impossible since most exclude the ability to be members of other religions or sects!
*If* you are a believer in god, or any other deity, the "risk" you take by not believing *should* be negligible anyway. Does not most, if not all mainstream religions out there feel that "god" has unconditional love? And don't they love to say that god is forgiving? Why would such a "loving" being, entity in the universe, condemn you for not believing, when god itself does NOT appear and set the record straight? The religions of the world all have "earthly" representatives that are flawed and contradictory. The books available are full of violence and mixed messages. Each "bible" out there is full of flaws, and encouragements to do bad things. Just check out the SAB (skeptic's annotated bible) for confirmation of this, or just do the research yourself.
People believing in the "what if you are wrong" wager, have a low opinion about their god's justice and mercy.
With ALL the flawed information, ultra-sinning clergy, and religion based wars and crimes, WHY would a god, if it existed, even remotely hold it against you for not believing, when the world sets such a bad example as a whole? It would seem that if there really was a god, and there really was a heaven or hell, that "god" would at the very least, educate the non-believer in the afterlife, not burn them forever for not following poor logic, poor examples, and flawed text! Even our worst judges that sit on benches in the worlds courts are not that intolerant!
The only source of religious knowledge in the world is really what your parents taught you, what you read in books, hear in church, or see on TV. There are no "live broadcasts" from heaven, hosted by god, to steer you toward whatever is the "one true" religion. We only have human written books, and human spoken beliefs to go by.
So, before you contact me, or anyone else involved on this site with "What if you are wrong", why not first ask YOURSELF what if *you* are wrong?
Here is the problem with following pascal's wager. If you ARE wrong about your religious belief, (and you ARE wrong most likely), you WASTE your life with delusion, and you spread the "word" to people who already have enough problems in life, and do not need to deal with religious fear as well.
People that believe in religion seem to "wish" for the end of the world, or the rapture, and many look forward to the demise of non-believers. Plus, believers tend to look at non-believers as "sub-human" and "beneath" them. I personally do not like to be looked "down" upon by someone with an air of superiority about them. I never much cared for the "I am better than you because you will burn in hell", types. Oh yes, they always say "Hate the sin, love the sinner", but that is wrong, and not the way the human mind works. If you think deep inside, you really do think you are better then "me" or anyone not believing in your religion, that is a real ego problem, and dealing with it with only a cliche is just plain wrong.
So many logical fallacies in this idea it boggles the mind! Christians do not realize that they are really taking the same chance as their "atheist adversaries." I mean, I'm amazed that christians are taking the chance that vishnu won't send him to raurava (that's a hindu hell, folks) for their misguided belief in jehovah! Or maybe their belief in jesus will land him in the clutches of angra mainyu. myans believed in pascals wager tooPerhaps by failing to sacrifice the hearts of enemies slain in battle, christians will suffer eternal flaying at the claws of tezcatlipoca. Pascal's wager has been around a long time, and it's always the same; it starts with the assumption that one religion is correct and all the other religions, belief systems and philosophies are wrong. Outside the context of a given religion, why should one expect that this is the case? All belief is a matter of personal preference unless it is conditioned by empirical evidence so, in the end, I'm amazed that christians are willing to risk the distinct possibility that their religion is the wrong one. The only other solution to this ramification of pascal's wager (Pascal's dilemma?) is to follow every single religion that has ever existed and to embrace every possible belief simultaneously — which is impossible as demonstrated by Edward Current's youtube above. We'll have to satisfy ourselves with examining hard evidence, then, and hope that if we're wrong about everything that whatever deity turns out to be the right one(s) isn't as vindictive a son-of-a-bitch as christians think he (or it) must be. Even allowing for the existence of one or more deities, after all, doesn't necessitate that they aren't nice beings who don't spend all their time worrying about beliefs of mere humans...
the universeI mean, if any god or gods went to all this trouble to arrange an entire universe for our benefit, they'd have to be pretty nice beings, wouldn't they? Pretty smart and tolerant no? Why even bother in the first place if not? Then again, we might well ask them about the whole human birth canal problem, why female hyenas have a pseudo-penis, and any number of other design flaws we see in this grand scheme of things. If they did indeed create analytical intelligence, they must have meant for it to be used. Perhaps the gods just got bored with each other and needed somebody new to talk to. That in itself would get boring in a hurry if we simply agreed with them on every point. Pascal's Wager seems a bit of tediously dull thought in comparison to the limitless possibilities that I can dream up while sitting in a chair...
