Most of us at one time or another have heard of Pascal's Wager, the idea "that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief." This argument has been debated repeatedly on these boards, but I've yet to see a debate on a possible counter-claim - the Atheist's Wager.

The Atheist's Wager

*note: the editor's of wikipedia have expressed concerns that the Atheists Wager is not notable enough as a topic to be worthy of its own web page, and as such, may be merged with the page on Pascal's Wager, or perhaps deleted. Just thought you should know, just in case the link stops working for being deleted or merged*

Anywho, in contrast to Pascal's Wager, the Atheist Wager claims that "It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

The basic premise is that one should live their lives to the fullest, making it the best place possible. If God does not exist, then you have lost nothing. If God does exist and is a benevolent God, then you will be rewarded for your good deeds and living to the best of your ability. If God does exist and won't accept you, then it is a malevolent God, not worthy of worship

There are of course many criticisms of the Atheists Wager, as there are of Pascal's Wager, but I thought i'd open the thread up for discussion here. Happy arguing

Regards, PA

How about something in between, because Pascals Wager seems to limit the chosen god. For instance, say I believe in the biblical god, but upon meeting my "maker" I come to find out that it's not the biblical god, instead it is one of the ancient sumerian gods. Don't know if that made sense, but my point is that some people can still be screwed because their god isn't the " right one". I'm agnostic btw, but I think the latter half of the athiests wager is applicable to me...I guess.

I'd never heard of the Atheists Wager before this thread, and am surprised at how accurately it fits in with my belief system. Raised as a baptist, I have since "abandoned" religion (for want of a better term) on the grounds that I simply disagree with how "God" does things.

The event that spurred on this change would be the death of my Grandpa, a kind and generous man, a Police station captain and loyal husband and father, but a total atheist. According to Christian doctrine, or pretty much any mainstream religion, he should now be burning in hell for his sins.

Should this total improbability turn out to be true, a God that would commit such an act of malicious judgment is not deserving nor worthy of my worship, and I too shall burn in hell on grounds of principle. If, as I suspect, God turns out to be nothing more than a concoction of an ancient mankind, too paranoid to admit that death is the end, a collection of stories gradually twisted and distorted through time, then I can only hope upon my death to be remembered with the fondness I only hope I deserve.

Don't worry, you made sense. Indeed, that is one of the main criticisms of Pascal's Wager Though from what I understand, Pascal, in the original context of this wager, had already addressed that specific issue (though of course I could be wrong).

Here's how you know, choose the God, with which your non-belief will have the most consequences. Like for instance, using that logic it would be better to be Christian than muslim because according to the Koran you can be saved if your Christian. HOwever Christianity is the only religion which makes the claim of being the ONE TRUE way to heaven. howevert this is flaky and belief should not ne based on this. Choose what you will live as you will and in the end you will see the result of your actions.

Don't you look down on "if" threads, PA? Or is it only "if" threads that disagree with you?

Nobody should have to worry about "god" despite what they do in life. They should be worrying a whole lot more about the Invisible Pink Unicorn and to make sure they don't stray to the path of the Purple Oyster.

So even more so this thread is misnamed... Agnostics take chance that there is a god and religion may be right... Atheists don't. Should really be "The Agnostic's Wager".

Life life as you want and do what you want done to you. It's been that same code through out our species for some time now.

How exactly is this an "if thread". What's an if thread?

You could always edit the wikipedia article to be titled"The Agnostic's Wager", if they'll let you. If it was titled "the Agnostic's Wager", I'd have made this thread title to match

For me, I try to be open-minded and say-- there might be a supreme entity... and there might not be one. I am open to either one, because I know as I learn and grow the truth will continue to present itself to me... atleast a personal truth. I think it is important to be honest with yourself, and sometimes that means saying--- I don't know, but I'm willing to be open about it.

Yes good choice, after all if it is the Will of God that you should be saved than you will be . Keep an open mind.


Yes good choice, after all if it is the Will of God that you should be saved than you will be . Keep an open mind.

A "what if" thread to be more on the nail. I remember not too long ago you making a quick remark about a "what if" thread and here yourself starts one.



So by your own reasoning, you didn't even understand the content that you posted for this discussion.

Bottom line is, that agnostics and atheists share very close to the same beliefs but not the same. Even sometimes it gets in a cross fire for a "gnostic atheist".

By still believing in this wager if you want to call it, you're still admitting you have fear from a god because you don't want to do bad for fear then he/she won't like it.

Shouldn't it really be "The Agnostic's and Atheist's Wager"? Both take the same chance, agnostics acknowledge the possibility they may be wrong, athiests don't. The risks of the wager are the same, it is only their attitudes towards that risk that change.

I agree with you Kratos. You should want to follow a god because it is the love and wisdom that god presents to you, not for fear of misinterpreting or not following what man-made scriptures say.

Yeah, in sense they take the same chance. Though, I don't live my life in fear of being judged at the end by some god. That's the difference. By saying this, it's going to look like you still fear a god at the end because of the way you live your life... That points more so to agnostic on that belief system.

I personally hope this to be right- if my friends never find Christ- I would love for them to spend an eternity with me in Heaven- Jealous as that sounds- Icannot help but think that way.

Still not certain how this is a "what if" thread. Maybe you could explain it to me in greater detail. Though you are correct, I've occassionally taken umbrage to certain "what if" scenario's posed, simply because the best answer was often the most unrealistic, or else the situation posed had no favourable answer and instead was asked only to skew the discussion to trivial matters unrelated to the thread. A big difference in rationale for not liking them, I believe. Regardless, how is this a "what if" thread?

Not at all. I do understand it. I even ammended the premise slightly to make it more favourable for the wager (my comment on a malevolent God being unworthy of worship is not an aspect in the Atheist's Wager in technicality - see the section under "Criticisms" in the article I linked - but rather a criticism that I smoothed over for you guys because it made more sense than ignoring the possibility of a malevolent God). I'm just saying I'm not going to call something the "Agnostic's Wager", when it is known in other context's only as the "Atheist's Wager".

No argument here (for once, lol)

Then you still take the same risk, the only difference is you do not live in fear because you do not acknowledge the possibility that you may be wrong. To you, there is no possibility, therefore there is no fear.

A religious man would call that ignorance, I call it realisation, and I heartily agree

It's saying what if there is a god, should you behave if there is one regardless.



So you only say that now after I bring it up and afterwards. Flip-flopping.



I can see the other side. I like Dawkin's term "teapot atheist". You cannot disprove the existance of a teapot between mars and earth but you can't prove it either. Same with pixies in the garden, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster or really anything else. I'm just not going to live in that fear *if* a god exists.


The more so of this idea is just assuming god is a nice fellow. Which isn't the case more then not. For christians we have original sin, so if you don't accept jesus as your savor you're up crap creek with a very small paddle. Even if you're a small baby that's done no wrong, you go to hell if you die because you didn't accept jesus. Christians, you can all thank Adam and Eve for that one. It really goes for all other religions though, that if you don't accept you get screwed in the end.

So in this wager believers are trying to say that there is a god, you should fear him and god is a moderate push over... All this is to reflect on their faith as trying to be the right one and polished for people to look on it kindly.

Fair enough, I guess you could call it a "what if". Though my issue with "what if's" is when they put people in unrealistic situations, or place unrealistic expectations on the outcome. My issue isn't with the theorizing in any way. There's a difference. As I said, the rationale behind the "what if" is important. I don't have anything intrinsically against "what if" argument's.

Forgive me, but could you show me where I say I did not understand the Atheist's Wager? All I said was that I named this thread after the article, and if you didn't like the topic title, then maybe you should take the matter up with wikipedia.

*gotta love this endless arguing, eh*

I was always taught babies were born innocent, therefore upon death they would get automatic entry into heaven. Anyway, that's by the by, it's the leading of a good life yet ending up in hell for not beleiving in God that I take issue with, but without the threat of eternal damnation religion loses its hook. You only have to listen to any evangelist to know that's their main point of attack for us non-beleivers.

Fine then.

Well in the beginning. I'm assuming you didn't know until I pointed it out... You want to go off of wiki says. So you blindly beliefed into the article. You probably saw it could be brought up as a possible way to sneak god into morals of non-believers, so here you are.

Yeah, you should love it... Your first post "Happy arguing "

No sense in holding back on my attack. Better to be open and blunt. So far I have flipped the idea of the article off of atheism, the morals without god are still there and I've got you argueing against me on your own understanding... I think I'm doing pretty good so far.



That's what I was taught to. I've come to find out that's a moderate belief though and it goes against the original sin adam and eve caused humanity. See that' why jesus died for our sins, so if we accepted him we could be granted heaven with the shedding of our original sin. So every human born, anywhere in the world is born a sinner.

That's a bit of a fanatical Christian point of view is it not? I've yet to meet anyone who would argue that point.

Sounds more like propaganda from a TV evangelist to get new mothers and fathers into Church than something most Christians would believe.

Uh huh. So this was all a clandestine attempt by myself to tell people that they can't be moralistic without God, right? Or was it a secret push to show people that following God was the better option? The honest truth is that I had no ulterior motive for starting this thread. I wanted to bring up a topic that I found interesting while searching the net. That is all.

~ PA

P.S - as for the "Happy arguing ", I've started many threads using the same (or similar) phrases. It doesn't in any way reflect on my intentions.

P.P.S - are you sure you aren't zandore in disguise, lol?

They've moved away from that because of the changing society, they don't like that idea and it looks better for them if they don't damn babies to hell.

You'll hear very often believers saying all people are sinners, including themselves. That's the original sin from Adam and Eve.



Yeah, it seems that way by injecting the agnostic's morals with the fear of god at the end of life. That's what the wager is about, seemly. That's what I'm argueing on because the thread was brought up by a believer. Not like I'm off base with my ideas either. So I'm discussing this topic as it is... And you're getting all touchy over it. You can keep on going off playing that you didn't mean the thread for what the topic is at hand or you can discuss it. I don't care which way you go.

Well, I won't hear them at all, fortunetely evangelism isn't anywhere near as popular here as it is in the USA, thank God

I do think however you are generalising on what you beleive all Christians beleive, there are so many denominations of Christianity it's almost impossible to say there's definately something all of them beleive.


You know, I've gone back over the thread and I fail to see where it was PA was trying to anything except encourage a discussion from people with different perspectives.

Wouldn't it be better if the discussion centered around the content of the topic rather than the motive?....Just a suggestion

Yeah, it's scary over here.

Well it's from Genesis in the beginning of the Bible. Adam and Eve, are pretty much in all branches of Christianity.



I am discussing the topic though. It's the flaw I see in an "atheist's wager" that there might be a god so they don't do bad for that fear. I did take target at the motive and well, it's not unexpected for this topic brought up by a believer. When I bring up something against religion, I expect the same reaction. Motive or not, the discussion is still on the thought of doing good for fear and morals because of a god, which I'm discussing against.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think the Atheist's Wager implies being good through fear, I think it implies being good without it.

What it does imply is that Christians are good through fear, because they are afraid of Hell. For me and you, there is no Hell, and so no fear.

What I am saying is that I choose to live a good life, and "if" it turns out there is a "benevolent" God, then it wont matter that I wasn't a Christian.

The Atheist's Wager if anything is saying I lead a good life because I choose to, not because I am afraid of the consequences if I do not.

The Atheist Wager doesn't work when you consider that God will send you to hell for not believing in him.

i think theres nothing wrong with that, just get on with it.....if it floats your boat because the world would only confuse the persons what to follow and in the time we are born in with such a teaching of needing facts ,then i say chose what you may, how are you to know any better,enjoy your life and keep yourself focused.

not all religions send you to hell though so its flawed because people then debate through which one is....this is why we have atheism.

If "God" sends me to hell for that alone, then I definately disagree with God, as that's just wrong.

thats why fanatics shouldn't be allowed to touch these "wonderful holy books" so they can just make it up as they go along!...

Gotta love his creating that "free will", huh!?

Dear god , I freely choose not to believe in a god that creates hell.

God, your choice. Now get the from my sight, crispy!

Ever wonder, between the two, mortals made and god the maker, which one's ego doesn't need the stroke of faith god exists!?


To late! Waaaaay to late. As can be said for the koran and any other scripture(s) wherein some terrorist narrow mind thought to rule the world with the wave of what they call holy word.

How does a loving god speak to advocate genocide and in the hearing his specially gifted to hear mortal emissaries think to title the order: Holy war!? I know! Maybe it's because when the slaughter is over and after all the corpses are piled up is when the religion enters into it. Praying for the souls lost, to the battles who's weapons were first blessed by that same clergy. And before lives and futures believed they need have faith dying this way was gods words making it so. While the men that heard and translated gods speech, sit on high, as does he so they say, and watch from safe distance.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of someone's great lord. He is striding cross the ramparts, where the blood and guts done poured....

The problems with the Atheist Wager are the same problems with Pascal's Wager- narrowing the choices unnecessarily down to two, either "not believing=lost nothing" and "benevolent god=benefit", when there are obvious other choices like "numerous gods mighty pissed off by choice, go directly to Tartarus".

Also, it seems to only center around what I think of as the "Strong Atheist" position: The belief that there is no God, as opposed to the weak position, which is "I don't believe in a God or Gods". The first is a declarative belief, the second an expression of skepticism.

GW ever notice how 'gOd' is so involved, micro managment a hands on type diety....

I f you are an athiest and believe there is no god or supreme being(s) and think that there is absolutely nothing after death then you still can get it good. The closest we can come to "nothing" is deep sleep. And deep sleep (without dreams) is always blissful. You have no awareness whatsoever, not aware you are an ego that is dead and should be suffering, not aware of joy and suffering, not aware you are missing out on life. If death is like deep sleep then it can be a bliss to look forward to.

But isn't it the goal of Christians to live their life to the fullest and to do the most good possible? I don't see religon as something that stops you from doing good or living your life to the fullest. To me, the Athiest wager is just like that goal of someone who does believe in God, only without the belief in God part. The only thing is the part about "If God does not exist, then you have lost nothing." It is almost lie saying "If you have no goals, you cannot be disappointed." I think that both Athiests and those who believe in God try to do good and live their life to the fullest the same way, only with different beliefs as to why they are doing it, and the outcome of these actions, and the purpose of these actions. I mean, if I die, and I meet God, I won' be surprised. But if I die, and I do not meet God, and nothing happens, they I will also not be urprised, or anything else for that matter, because I'll be dead, and nothing will happen. It is a win/win situation for me. No one is gonna pull a fast one on this guy.

Just wanna say...there is no harm in anyone saying WHAT IF..heck that happens to be one of lifes questions about anything..WHAT IF?? we ALL have asked what if...havent we?? we all like to wonder..what if this and what if that...

IE

What if PA woke up one day and became an atheist??

What if..Kratos woke up and became a .....christian??

What if...BM began to believe in the bible...LOL what if...its the kind of question everyone asks in life

What if everyone got along and no squabbles and picking...heck that could happen...so come on guys is almost christmas..... no need to bicker





What if PA & Kratos started on BM over this post?

LMAO cheer up it may never happen LOL