Pascal's Wager Redux

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s coercion. Believe in God or you’ll go to hell. And anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself.

So who would be the authority here … you or the Bible?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

 

[Charlemagne_III]

M-theory does nothing to explain why there must be an infinite number of universes, nor how you would ever prove that, nor why universes are created one after another through all eternity, nor where the laws come from that govern all these universes, nor whether there are different laws that govern different universes.

The Big Bang model is the only one that scientifically and cogently argues the existence of a single universe that began in time.

M-theory is dreamy wish-fulfillment … a way of getting rid of God.

After all, it was dreamed up by an atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant.

If God exists, and he has some revelation, what would it look like to you?

That seems to be a straightforward question.

Not sure why you can’t answer this.

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant. Even one error disqualifies it to be of divine origin.

That the value of “π” (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi) is incorrectly stated to be as “3”. Read it here: biblehub.com/1_kings/7-23.htm Of course this is not taken “literally”, so it is just another legend, isn’t it?

Your eyes are mirrors into your soul.

That’s not to be taken literally.

But it’s not a legend.

Again, as another poster pointed out: you’re offering some peculiar nonsequiturs.

A) “Something is not literal”
B) “Therefore it’s a legend”.

How do you get from “A” to “B”?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

A) “Something is not literal”
B) “Therefore it’s a legend”.

How do you get from “A” to “B”?

Why don’t you ask this from the person who actually said that? Because I did not say it.

It would be ever so nice if only the church issued a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible, so we all could know if a specific verse is to be understood verbatim, literally, or it is some allegorical, poetic text. Until there is such an authoritative analysis, everyone is free to interpret any quote from the Bible as he or she wishes.

But let’s stick to the point. The quoted text from Kings 7-23 contains a mathematical error. An divinely inspired text cannot contain errors. Therefore the text cannot be divinely inspired. Case definitely closed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why don’t you ask this from the person who actually said that? Because I did not say it. It would be ever so nice if only the church issued a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible, so we all could know if a specific verse is to be understood verbatim, literally, or it is some allegorical, poetic text. Until there is such an authoritative analysis, everyone is free to interpret any quote from the Bible as he or she wishes…

Though there are many verses Catholics are free to interpret as they like, they are not free to interpret all the verses as they like. Settled doctrine forbids this.

Everyone outside the Catholic Church has the freedom to interpret all verses as they like, which is one reason why Protestantism is so confused and contradictory. All the Protestant sects not only protest against the Catholic Church, they all protest against each other. There is no unity in Protestantism except the unified opposition to the one Christian denomination that preaches the necessity of catholic (universal) and unified teachings.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.” Saint Paul (Ephesians 4:2-6).

 

[PRmerger]

The quoted text from Kings 7-23 contains a mathematical error. An divinely inspired text cannot contain errors. Therefore the text cannot be divinely inspired. Case definitely closed.

As I am wont to say: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

If you were on a Bible Alone forum, perhaps you could offer this as a criticism.

But you need to remember what kind of forum you’ve joined.

(It’s a Catholic forum. Best to be familiar with some of our teachings before you come here to argue with us about our teachings).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As I am wont to say: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

I am familiar with your incorrect argument (I have seen it far too many times). A fundamentalist would argue that the Bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and THEREFORE the value of “pi” being exactly “3” is actually correct.

(It’s a Catholic forum. Best to be familiar with some of our teachings before you come here to argue with us about our teachings).

The trouble is that I keep asking about the teaching of different verses in the Bible, and receive no answers - from those “knowledgeable” Catholics. So you should criticize your fellow apologists - and look into the mirror at the same time - who are either unable or unwilling to answer my simple questions. Which verses are to be interpreted literally true, and which ones are allegorical? This is the question that no fundamentalist would ever ask.

So I suggest, drop that “argument”, because it only casts doubt upon your “knowledge”.

 

[PRmerger]

I am familiar with your incorrect argument (I have seen it far too many times). A fundamentalist would argue that the Bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and THEREFORE the value of “pi” being exactly “3” is actually correct.

Ok…not sure what this has to do with anything or how it furthers your position?

 

[PRmerger]

So I suggest, drop that “argument”, because it only casts doubt upon your “knowledge”.

Every time I mention “knowledgeable Catholics” (and even when I don’t), it seems to create a peculiar Pavlov’s dog reaction in you.

Not sure why it bothers you to be told that there are knowledgeable Catholics here.

After all, you’re on a Catholic forum. Not a Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christian forum.

Suffice it to say: be very careful when you post here as there are lots of folks here who can call you out on what’s incorrect, as it applies to Catholicism.

Best to be very, very sure that what you’re saying actually represents Catholicism.

You might want to use this as a fact-checker:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Because the -]knowledgeable /-] well-read, informed, astute Catholics will jump all over those who propose any misinformed analysis of Catholicism.

 

[MPat]

Well, gee. You are so right. If I believed in God then…I wouldn’t be an atheist. Silly me.

So, in other words, you agree that if you would start to believe in God, you would pray and stop arguing for atheism. And if God exists, those changes are objectively morally good. Therefore, you would become more morally good. Thus you were wrong to make claim that “I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did actually believe that God existed, then it wouldn’t change the way I live my life in the slightest.” without proper qualifications.

You know, one can start to act better without being a mass murderer at first and becoming a saint afterwards. There are enough points between the extremes.

And what’s with the business of knowing how to become a better chess player or triathlete? You are missing the point by such a margin that I find it hard to credit.

That “business of knowing how to become a better chess player or triathlete” was meant to demonstrate that getting correct beliefs generally improves one’s behaviour and results. Mere “I do my best to be a good [something] in any case.” is not all that matters.

And if it is so with chess or running, why shouldn’t it be so with acting morally?

If I find a better way to do anything then it would be idiotic not to utilise it to improve myself. So please read this bit carefully: A belief in God would not make me a better person.

As we can see, it obviously would help, unless, of course, you also add an assumption that this belief would be wrong.

And how do you know that my beliefs are honestly held? Well, I just told you, buddy. I’d appreciate it greatly if you did not question my integrity.

Ah, yes - the stratagem when someone makes an argument using a premise “I am honest.” (or “I am smart.”, “I know what I am talking about.” - many good qualities can be used here) and then does not argue for it but hopes that opponents will not challenge it because of misplaced politeness…

In fact, I didn’t even challenge it here, instead just pointing out that the argument for it has the same form as the Pascal’s Wager.

Does it? Let’s look at the proposed evidence:

And how do you know that my beliefs are honestly held? Well, I just told you, buddy.

That is obviously not evidence for the beliefs being held honestly. After all, someone who was deceiving himself (or others, for that matter) would say the same thing.

So, the actual argument is this:

I’d appreciate it greatly if you did not question my integrity.

So, just as I said, we should accept that Bradski’s beliefs are held honestly not because of some evidence, but because he would be upset otherwise. That’s precisely the form of Pascal’s Wager.

Which leads to discussion of what could go wrong in an argument of such form. An obvious way in which it has gone wrong consists in making an argument while claiming that its form is invalid. After all, if possibility of making God upset (and ending up in Hell) is not supposed to be sufficient to justify a belief, why should a possibility of making Bradski upset be sufficient?

Another obvious way consists in being otherwise inconsistent. For example, Bradski, your argument would be subjectively more persuasive if you hadn’t claimed someone was dishonest in this very thread:

I’m not sure they are being entirely honest. At least, I hope they aren’t.

But there are other ways. For example, the argument depends on having nothing to lose in making a wrong guess in the “right” direction. So, in original Pascal’s Wager it was important that one loses nothing (or very little) if one mistakenly believes in God. And in this argument it is important that one can’t gain anything by claiming that those beliefs are not 100% honest. And in most discussions it really is so, honesty or dishonesty of other participants is irrelevant. Yet here an argument based on it has been made, thus one can make one’s work easier by just challenging the premise. The argument has been weakened…

So, I’d simply recommend to avoid making arguments with such premises, if you do not like them challenged. In that case discussions of your honesty will stay irrelevant.

That’s coercion. Believe in God or you’ll go to hell. And anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself. Never understood why anyone rates the Wager, it’s as far from the Sermon on the Mount as the east is from the west.

Actually, in that same Sermon Jesus says (Matthew 5:22): “And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”… Looks like “hell fire” was supposed to motivate one to avoid wrath. Would you say that is also “coercion”? And that “anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself.”?

Speaking of which, that might have been a part of what motivated me to check that I was not saying anything anywhere close to “Bradski is dishonest.”. And maybe, if Bradski was not an atheist, he also would have said not “I’m not sure they are being entirely honest.”, but “I’m not sure they are being entirely correct.”. As I was saying, having correct beliefs does help one avoid what is objectively wrong…

That the value of “π” (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi) is incorrectly stated to be as “3”. Read it here: biblehub.com/1_kings/7-23.htm Of course this is not taken “literally”, so it is just another legend, isn’t it?

It is an approximate value, having one significant digit. For all we know measurements were not sufficiently precise for two…

 

[Bradski]

So, in other words, you agree that if you would start to believe in God, you would pray and stop arguing for atheism. And if God exists, those changes are objectively morally good.

Praying is morally good? If I pray, I am a morally better person? Well, I guess that makes you morally superior to me. Coupled with that deeper understanding of morality itself that you have, I really am beginning to lose some ground here.

Note to self: must try harder.

And I don’t argue for atheism. I’ve never, at any time, in any post, on any subject, in any forum, ever attempted to convince someone that they should embrace my personally held views.

You must think that if I were to suddenly become a believer, then I would be such a good Catholic lad and embrace all that that entails.

And if I tell you that I honestly believe something, then that is the only evidence you are going to get.

 

[STT]

By the way, what is the value of heart and honesty if we start to make a deal with God, following Pascal’s suggestion?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

By the way, what is the value of heart and honesty if we start to make a deal with God, following Pascal’s suggestion?

It’s not a deal with God. It is a rational argument. If there is God and an afterlife in Heaven, why not believe in it? Otherwise you are believing in nothing, no life after death, no reunion with your dead loved ones, just nothing. Rationally in makes no sense to choose the latter as you have nothing to gain by it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Because the -]knowledgeable /-] well-read, informed, astute Catholics will jump all over those who propose any misinformed analysis of Catholicism.

Somehow all those -]knowledgeable /-] Catholics are all silent, when simple questions are presented. It is NOT a misinformed analysis that there is no official handbook to teach which verses of the Bible are literally correct, and which ones are merely allegorical…

 

[PRmerger]

Somehow all those -]knowledgeable /-] Catholics are all silent,

#pavlov

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, it IS circuitous. Better to go straight to believing. But if that is not possible, then Pascal’s point is that if you find yourself on the fence, go ahead and bet on God’s existence. It is the only safe wager.

The point I was making was that the whole thing is so circuitous that it’s a strong mark against its credibility. And credibility is a factor that you’ve brought up several times when the topic of what happens if we apply the wager to other deities, mostly by dismissing them out of hand.

If a person were to tell you to head over to the doughnut shop because they’re giving away a free doughnut to everyone in celebration of their anniversary, that’s a lot more plausible than if a person were to tell you that a doughnut shop was giving away a million dollars for anyone who tweeted “I love Mom’s Old-Fashioned Doughnuts” every day for a year. We as people constantly assess the credibility of things told to us before determining how (and if) we should act on them.

I didn’t say that such actions would lead one to the true faith; I said that such actions could lead one to true (read genuine) faith.

By genuine it seems like you mean any faith where one does so honestly and with an open mind. I take it in the same vein and say people (including myself and several others that have been posting here) have a genuine lack of faith.

Determining which religion is true requires that one first believes that any of them could be.

That’s a given. Before I decide what flavor of a soup I want I first want to eat soup.

But Pascal is not speaking of the person who is being forced against his will. He is addressing the person who is free to make up his or her own mind.

There are a great many similarities between the two, not the least of which is that forcing oneself or another person to believe in something they don’t see evidence for doesn’t make what is claimed as evidence any more compelling. It is far more likely in those cases to make a person regret the attempt.

This is just a dodge. The Wager does NOT “fail on so many levels”, and I find it interesting that atheists try to dismiss it by making this common assertion. As for the question regarding WHICH god to choose, well, that’s a far cry from asserting that there is NO god at all, isn’t it? Frankly, that’s an admission that the non-theist has been checkmated.

It’s a common assertion because it is a true assertion. If the creator of the universe wanted to make himself known he would do so. This game that we are supposed to play where our eternity hangs in the balance on believing in an entity that somehow is all-powerful yet has to use methods that are no different than long abandoned religions has all the earmarks of trying to cobble together an explanation after the fact. Once that commonality that runs through every religion that demands in the belief of one or more deities is somehow overcome, only then is it fair to change the question from “Is there a god or gods?” to “Which god or gods?”

By the way, if you feel like killing a few minutes you may want to do a search on “Checkmate atheists” online. It’s a bit of a meme.

When I go to a restaurant, I may be overwhelmed by all the choices on the menu, but that doesn’t mean that there is no food in the kitchen.

When Edison sought to invent the lightbulb, he failed to find the proper material needed for the element hundreds of times. But he only needed one correct material in order to succeed.

Neither of these is analogous whatsoever to what we’re discussing. No matter what I order from a large menu I can be assured I’ll get a meal. When Edison invented the light bulb he did find the proper material, and I can hold in my hand a light bulb. In fact, both of these aren’t analogous in another way. In the Edison case as we’ve discovered several different materials that can be used in light bulbs – so if the analogy were to hold then there are multiple gods and we just need to find one of them. In the menu case ALL of the choices are legitimate – so if that analogy holds then Xenu is just as valid a choice as Thor which is just as valid a choice as Yahweh.

No, any attempted analogy where it’s a matter of one of multiple possibilities fails simply because we get valid, tangible choices. With religion all we get are vague and unsubstantiated threats of post-death torture.

You may feel it necessary to examine hundreds of “gods”, but you only need to find one that is real. And unlike Edison, you have the advantage in that God is actively assisting you in your search!

If he’s assisting, then he’s doing a very poor job. There’s truth in this saying:

An all-loving God would want me to believe in him.
An all-knowing God would know how to make me believe in him.
An all-powerful God would be able to make me believe in him.

It still amazes me that believers will attest to God’s inifinite everything yet so many hoops are needed to justify why he doesn’t show up and say “Hi!” like a person would.

Jeremiah 29:13
“You will seek me and find me with all your heart, says the Lord. I will be found by you.”

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” That’s John 12:39-40, which was to try and explain away why so many Jews in Jesus’ own time did not believe despite being the ones who should be most receptive to the message. The undercutting of the thoughts of non-Christian belief has been going on for two millennia.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This argument fails because the man has chosen to follow the Catholic approach to salvation FOR A REASON. Let me explain: if you told me that I can get to heaven by eating a Marshmallow cupcake every day for the rest of my life, I could certainly follow those instructions, but I would first want to know the basis or authority for that claim. If I accepted your reasons, then I would carry out the program. Yum! But I would not do so if I didn’t believe that your claims had any substance.

If Zap chooses to follow Catholicism, it’s because he thinks there is something to it. He may not believe everything with certainty - he may not even be sure he believes in God - but he wants to believe (and go to heaven) and he does believe that there is some plausibility to the claims of the Catholic Church. So, he chooses to act on what he believes is plausibly true. He is not acting on something he is knows to be false.

Wait a second. This whole part of the discussion was about if Zap doesn’t think that Catholicism (or Christianity in general) is necessarily true, but follows its practices out of fear of eternal penalty. You can’t in one breath say that someone submitting to the go-through-the-motions side of the wager by claiming Zap sees some possible truth in Christianity, then in the next breath mock atheists who won’t submit to the wager because they don’t believe Christianity to be true.

I don’t think that is the definition of invincible ignorance. Jimmy Akin says the following here:
If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

Thus, if Zap actually put in the time that you say he does, then he has been diligent and this reduces his culpability for being ignorant.

Does that reduction in culpability mean someone like me – a person who has been baptized and confirmed – who has studied Catholicism a great deal and find it not to be accurate, yes or no can someone like me be saved? Jimmy Akin seems to be obfuscating whether salvation is or is not possible or likely.

Perhaps you should be more diligent about studying invincible ignorance!

And FWIW, in my experience talking with atheists on their forums, many (and I mean a high percentage) WANT to be ignorant of basic facts about God, the Bible, Christianity and Jesus, etc. Why? Because many of them do not want to change their lifestyles or to acknowledge that they are sinners in need of a savior. They do not WANT to obey God. So, they ignore material that refutes their positions and continue to read books and articles written by people who are “preaching” what they want to hear. This is “studied ignorance”, and I find it to be the most common attitude of atheists online.

Anyone who has not adopted this affected stance is more likely to be a soft agnostic rather than a true atheist.

That’s two chestmuts in a row. One, the old cannard that non-believers don’t follow Christianity because they want to sin. Two, the idea that atheists open to the possibility of Christianity but just haven’t been afforded any evidence at this time are not “true” atheists. For a hat trick all we’d need now is the notion that athiests really worship Satan.

On the first one it seems there are some believers who have trouble fathoming that a person can assess all aspects of the case for the Christian God and still not believe. As I noted in my first post on this thread, while I myself am an atheist I think that a reasonable person can disagree with me and be a Christian. I attribute this in part to how nebulous, malleable, and unfalsifiable the arguments are. But for those who can’t in turn understand why a reasonable person can study the matter and end up an atheist, strange explanations crop up. Usually this starts with assumptions that the atheist has not done his due diligence in learning the faith, but when it’s demonstrated that the atheist is quite knowledgeable (sometimes more than the believer) the explanations become a bit more insidious. Supposedly they know that God exists, yet either refuse to obey him and/or they just want to sin. There’s no need to undercut an entire group of people who have come to a different conclusion than you have but claiming they just love doing evil so so very much.

On the second one, I know it’s been explained to anyone who has been in the philosophy sub-forum long enough how atheism doesn’t mean the absolute certainty that there are no gods, and that atheism means to feel there is not enough evidence for a god or gods. A person can be simultaneously athiest and agnositc, as the former is to the belief in deities and the latter is to whether we can know if deities exist.

Nope. The whole point of the wager is NOT to recommend a wager when the bettor sees NO evidence but when there are compelling arguments on both sides and the outcome of the affair still hangs in the balance.

Your first post makes absolutely no mention of whether the person finds the evidence compelling. It’s all about believing in God because he’ll torch you eternally if you don’t and you can go to Heaven if you do believe, whereas atheism has no such positive and negative reinforcement.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is not the purpose of such actions, although it is one of the effects and might well be one of secondary goals. The purpose is simply to do what is right and rational.

But you’re not touching on the point I was making. If praying and attending a Christian (preferably Catholic) church is the right and rational thing to do, even as a “secondary goal”, then the fact that an omni-everything god takes this very same method that other religions (ones Christians say are false) uses to get them to pray to their god(s) and attend their services calls into question it’s likelyhood. It certainly isn’t rational. As I noted to Randy above when taking into account things like Pascal’s Wager credibility is a major factor. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness puts a serious damper on said credibility.

It works similarly with charity: the purpose of helping the neighbour is to, um, help the neighbour. Such actions also help one to get feelings associated with charity, but that is not the main purpose.

I agree. The problem is Randy said that charity (along with prayer and church attendance) would help lead one to the true faith. I countered by saying there are some believers who are not charitable and there are some non-belivers who are charitable.

For let’s face it: when you (and other atheists) talk about faith and beliefs, you often have feelings in mind, not something rational.

I disagree. Atheists tend to ask the hows and whys to understand and believers tend to say that one must first believe before any understanding. Believers that I’ve seen describe their faith often (though not always) couch it in terms of feeling.

Actions that one is forced to perform have effects that are very different from effects of actions one has freely chosen to perform (even if that has been done unenthusiastically).

As I described above there are certainly similarities between actions a person forces on his or her self and actions imposed by others. Compound that with the fact that the person in question has taken the time to assess the situation and found no reason behind performing such actions and the results in both cases will lean more towards resenting the actions than accepting them.

Really? Somehow I get a different impression… There have been many answers given in this very thread:

Evidence for different religions is not equally strong: you can choose the one with strongest supporting evidence.

I disagree if you’re saying Christianity has the strongest supporting evidence. Deism has far stronger evidence than Christianity in my opinion. It has the added bonus of not sending me to Hell for lack of belief.

Consequences of being wrong about different religions are different (for example, if you are wrong about Hinduism, you can try again later): you can choose the one with best “benefits”.

So again it’s about the threats more than the evidence. Let’s say that X is a deity who not only subjects me to Hell if I disbelieve but also my family, even if they believe in X. X has offered a stronger case to worship him than Yahweh. If such a religion existed it’s likely you wouldn’t follow it because you believe in Yahweh based on your reading of the evidence. Evidence is the key and not the threat.

Just about any religion holds doctrines that say that just about any another religion is a much better choice than atheism: you can simply choose any of them.

I strongly disagree with that. I’ve posted at length in other threads about those cases where a deity (according to a holy book) or a church has commanded people to do great evil, which puts believers in a unique bind that atheists simply don’t have.

And yet, the atheists seem to ignore those answers…

In the same way that I ignore 5 as being the answer to 2+2. This thread has provided similar answers. feelings. Thus yes, sacraments work even if feelings are not present.
What do you mean by a sacraments “work”?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? It looks like here you are (implicitly) arguing in the very fashion of Pascal’s Wager: we are supposed to accept that atheists are honest, intelligent and knowledgeable not because of some evidence, but because otherwise they will be upset. Sure, this argument is much weaker than the original, but the similarities are present.

How on earth are you equating my defense that there are (many) atheists who have honestly assessed the religion question openly and honestly with a philosophical question of going through the motions of Christianity for fear of Hell. “Arguing in the very fashion of Pascal’s Wager?” Those two things are not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport.

I’ve stated from the beginning that because a god is neither provable nor falsifiable that a reasonable person could pick one of many sides to that question – including saying that there is likely no god due to a lack of evidence for any. You’ve been on CAF for over 10 years, and you’re suggesting in all that time you’ve never met a single atheist here or in real life that – while you disagree with that person – has made an open and thorough assessment of the god question?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Where exactly does Bible say that in order to avoid Hell it is “necessary” to “believe Jesus was his lord and savior”? Chapter and verse, please. It is the way in which some Protestants formulate their doctrines, but, in fact, it is not how Catholic Church does that.

But when a non-believer decides to consider the wager he or she is not just looking at Catholicism (as has been noted several times by multiple people here). If a person is considering whether the Christian god is to be believed a person should at least consider the exclusivist position.

So what do you think happens after death Mike? Nothing? Or are you still unsure on this question?

I think when we die the conciousness dies. To me there is no afterlife. I always leave any possibilites open, but my search has not revealed anything to change my mind yet.