It is commonly assumed that should a God and his Heaven actually exist,
that it would be the theist which believes in him that would stand a
better chance of getting into Heaven than that of an atheist. Thus the
claim has been made that if atheists are correct then upon death they
get nothing--but if they are incorrect they risk eternal damnation;
whereas if the theists is correct then upon death they get Heaven--but
should they be wrong they get nothing. In other words, atheists are
playing a draw/lose game, and theists are playing a win/draw game
(considering the three outcomes to be Heaven/nothing/Hell). Thus it
would seem that theists are the more rational, if only for hedging
their bets. [1]

But the above common assumption of a theist's better chances of getting
into Heaven over that of an atheist is incorrect (assuming for the sake
of argument that a God exists). As it is demonstrably provable that
should a God exist then he wants man not to believe in his existence.
Thus, atheists would be conforming to God's will, whereas theists would
be going against it.

If a God did exist, then he must have given man the faculty of reason
for one purpose: namely, to use it. Yet upon using it on the question
of the existence of a God, man by his use of reason would have no
choice but to conclude that there is no logical or empirical reason to
believe that a God exists--in short, that man's faculty of reason can
provide no foundation for a belief in God. Thus, even if a God did
exist, he wants man not to believe in his existence. Quite ironically
then, even if God exists, an atheist would stand a better chance of
getting into Heaven than a theist. As the theist believes in something
for which he has no evidence for--against the wish of God who gave him
the faculty of reason so as to be used. Whereas the atheist has used
his faculty of reason for which God had given him. Thus, prudence
requires that one should not believe in anything supernatural--as
reason dictates God would intend it, should he actually exist (absurd
as the notion of that possibility is).

Whereas I have not proved that a God does not exist, what I have proved
is that if a God does exist, he wants man not to believe in his
existence (along with extrapolating the implications thereof). Thus,
theists are found to be the true heathens.

NOTE:

1. This present analysis ignores the very real possibility (assuming
again for the sake of argument that a God exists) that by choosing
the "wrong" religion--which seems to be an almost statistical certainty
considering the thousands of different religions, almost each one of
which claims to be the only "true" one--that the misguided theist
thereby simply agitates God evermore with each passing day, thus
assuring his eternal damnation.

--The Count

"A man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle."
--author unknown

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Well, I think refuting Pascal's wager is quite a worthy task.  The
question of why Pascal's 'decision theory' argument, based on the risks of
non-belief, is not correct, is quite a tricky one.  Pascal's argument
doesn't depend on there being a probability that God exists, but only a
possibility, which most non-theists will grant.

> Anyone can create an abitrary claim that they can aruge that you gain
> some benefit from believing. If you accept one such claim, you must
> accept them all.

Well, I take it this is just like that other guy's response.  That is, if
you accept P's Wager, then you should also accept 'the Atheist's Wager',
which argues that there is at least some chance that by believing in God,
you will wind up in Hell.  That's just a specific case of what you're
saying.