Please don't rehash Pascal's Wager

I thought Pascal's Wager was thrown out a long time ago. Apart from the problems of which religion, lack of total commitment to the belief and dodgy uses of infinity to break the maths, it assumes that a supernatural being wants to spend eternity with a bunch of sheep. Those that simply believe, rather than believe based on the balance of evidence.

If the biblical god exists, I envisage a scenario like this.

God: "I see the Athenians have created a system of government called democracy. It seems more equitable than other systems. How does someone choose a representative?"

Faithful: "Only God may judge men."

G: "Umm.. okay. I noticed the use of public statues. At first, I thought it was idolatory but they can inspire virtue and good deeds."

F: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

G: "Thanks for that. The Bible has been a roaring success and a brilliant guide. Mankind is now ready for a follow up. I'd love to hear your ideas!"

F: "You are the source of knowledge and wisdom. If it is your will, then it will be so."

G: "They're all ****ing sheep! What was I thinking? That's it, no more divine inspiration! I'm erasing all evidence that I exist. Anybody who believes in my existence based on no evidence is clearly an idiot and gets wiped. Hopefully, I might be left with someone with a brain!"

I'd say that if a supernatural being exists with an eternal afterlife, theism would exist as a trap.

Also, where did this come from?

You've probably been ridiculing people who chose to believe differently - so you've probably offended a whole lot of people. This is not very social.

Few people even talk about religion, or at least in my country. I'm an atheist and no one cares, let alone be offended. If atheists want social opportunities, there are plenty of gatherings besides churches and you don't have to read a ludicrous book.

You seem to be under the impression that atheists are fanatics. Never met a fanatic atheist myself but I think we need to import some definitions from elsewhere.

Strong atheist: Asserts that there can be no gods or supernatural forces.
Weak atheist: Concludes there are no gods or supernatural forces due to insufficient evidence.
Agnostic: Claims knowing the existence of gods or supernatural forces is unknowable.

I come under weak atheist but I regard it as an annoying term as it suggests a lack of intellectual vigour. I haven't seen any strong atheists on this board either.

So there you have it, atheists have the same social life as anybody else but don't have to employ doublethink about a book with daft stories and out-of-date morality. And if they're wrong, can explore the afterlife with an open mind.

Welcome to IWETHEY!