Pascal's Wager = Religious Hucksterism

"What have you got to lose?"

"Why not take a bet"?

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Criticisms

Compare Pascal's Wager to that of the Atheist's Wager:-

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. 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.

Which wager is the more moral?
Whch is the more honest?
Which is the more courageous?

Here's Hitchen's thoughts on both proposition:-

I, as a Christian, agree with your stance against Pascal's Wager. I find it as a fruitless attempt to win people over to the faith.

That said: They both should be moral because accepting God means doing His commandments (summed up in 'love thy neighbor as thyself'). Religion just shows a consequence and reaction to when your actions are unjust and immoral. Atheists do not necessarily have such a dilemma to bare.

Which is more honest? Neither; for one should not take a stance in chance, but (for the believers of God) have faith from inward desire.

Have faith because you feel it must be so, not because it's probably the better option.
See the good it can bring and strive to bring that good to fruition.
Seek to know God and let your prejudices melt away.

As for the atheist, seek good for goodness' sake (though I myself would have you also seek to know God).

I hope this was an acceptable response, and if not I would love to hear a counter-argument. (I don't mean to sound better but that I enjoy debates)

May God's love be with you friends.

reply to post by JeshurunAndronicus

That said: They both should be moral because accepting God means doing His commandments (summed up in 'love thy neighbor as thyself').

Commandments are man-made, even Moses was a revisionist. That said, i do agree that we need to find a common humanism.

'). Religion just shows a consequence and reaction to when your actions are unjust and immoral.

The consquence of unjust actions being eternal torture? God; the judge jury and executioner; there can be no appeal, you don't get a laywer on judgement day.

False promise, and false threats are proposed in scripture, and used to warn peoeple off rejecting the ideology or the extraordinary metaphysical claims.

I think, we have to agree that such unfalsifiable claims (e.g Heaven and Hell) could easily scare and worry a child (or an adult alike)

Atheists do not necessarily have such a dilemma to bare.

Because atheism can't claim to reveal wisdom that it couldn't possibly know. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity; it isn't an instruction manual or a "how-to" guide for life or morality, like the bible claims to be.

And obviously that causes prejudice, anyone fully believing "the word of God" will think someone like me is "sub-par", a "sinner", or even "dirty" or "wicked". Anyone believing the bible is bound to form prejudice against a non-believer. Especially if you believe Original Sin.

Have faith because you feel it must be so, not because it's probably the better option.

Interesting take; tell me; how do YOU feel it must be so? What's your reasoning? What's this "feeling" you get?

See the good it can bring and strive to bring that good to fruition.

I don't think religion has a monopoly over that above concept, though.

Seek to know God and let your prejudices melt away.

Depends which "GOD" you refer to, Prejudice can easily be formed with either of the abrahamic Gods of Juduism, Christianity and Islam?

If you're refferring to a Deistic god, then i would have to agree wtih you

As for the atheist, seek good for goodness' sake (though I myself would have you also seek to know God).

Many atheists do, and not to please God, not for any afterlife; they do it simply for a want to be good; There are many voluntary workers within Secular charities.

I hope this was an acceptable response, and if not I would love to hear a counter-argument. (I don't mean to sound better but that I enjoy debates)

Of course it was an acceptable response; don't think it wasn't just because i've commented, or questioned a few things you wrote.

May God's love be with you friends.

May humanities love be with you, or your animals if you have pets.