Quote from aphexcoil:
I'd say most convictions are generated over time through experiences. Quite simply, we are merely the sum of all our experiences through life. However religion is different in that we formulate a lot of our opinions (or biases) based on how our parents brought us up.
I was raised as Lutheran but I no longer believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I do believe in a god, but I do not believe that this "god" is omnipotent. I also do not believe that this god has any influence over things that happen within this universe. It is very possible that god could be dead and his creation "the universe" continues today without his assistance or intervention.
Those are just merely speculative ideas and I have no proof for them. Nobody has any proof about the whereabouts of god or if he exists. We all just have our own internal belief structures that we use to get us through a world otherwise ruled by probabilities and statistics on a quantum level.
That's the point aphie, no one has any proof of anything about God. Now, the atheists aren't idiots -- far from it -- and they can, from what I have seen (and it's a lot), easily handle all the arguments that theists throw up. So, ultimately, believing in God becomes a personal matter, as there isn't anything in the realm of human knowledge that would
compel a person to one side or the other.
As I said, in a few words: it's a choice.
I wasn't arguing the
actual Pascal's Wager, but a refined version of it; call it Alfonso's Wager.
The point where Pascal falls down is that he was asking you to only wager against Christianity (or one particular religion). But there are many, many various religions. So betting on the basis of believing in one of them so that you don't go to hell is no insurance policy at all, because you might've chosen the wrong religion.
My wager is much more based on the deistic model -- a term I had thought most were familiar with, but I guess not -- in which there isn't some eternal damnation for disbelieving or believing something else. It's doesn't even have to be the case that you will "miss out" on an "afterlife", if there is one, for disbelieving; I mean, it can be that, but it doesn't have to be. Most of the benefits are available to you in the "here and now".
Of course, an atheist could say that he has access to all those benefits without having to believe in God. I'd say he's wrong. I'd say he can come close, but he's settling for a portion of the prize when he can have the whole thing -- and the best part is, it doesn't cost him anything to do it! (Except maybe his intellectual pride! And that's a good thing!)