Athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Shouldn't atheists and everybody else who isn't a theist be an agnostic ? A common complaint is the claim that if you can't prove that God doesn't exist in the most general sense of the term "God" you should be agnostic and not atheist. Just because you can't prove something does not exist does not warrant agnosticism for example. .. can we prove there is not an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now ? Answer No. Because we can't prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now does that mean we should believe that there is one ? Answer no. Because we can't prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now does that mean we should be agnostic towards the existence of invisible alien mother ship ? Not quite. .. .. .. .. .. Pro says. .. "Atheists can't even acknowledge His possibility - they wouldn't be atheist if they did. "This is false, MOST atheists don't claim that God in the most general sense can't exist. But like the alien mothership, although "possible" they don't believe its "actual". Assertion number 1) Pro says about atheists "If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity. "I would like to point out a shift of ground on Pros part. In the first round they were making claims about atheists like If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity. ""But now in the second round Pro says. .. "My point is, should God/Divine Judgement prove to be real, how would utterly denying Him in this life do anything but increase risking unfavorable judgement? "I don't accept this shift of ground. Also I would respond to this question with my own question, how would believing in God cause you don't really believe he exists but are hedging some sort of bet wouldn't do anything but risk unfavorable judgement ? Usually God as presented in perfect being theology is presented as approving of such things as honesty, integrity etc and dis approving of the opposites. Not only does this give us good reason to not accept Pros advice about placing our bets, it also gives us a good reason as to why not anyone should engage in such behaviour whether theist, agnostic, or atheist. Pro says. .. "To spend ones life denying His existence would mean that no act of virtue, no matter how good it may be, was done out of respect for their Creator. Denying one's Creator is, possibly, the worst offense possible"This is not a good argument, cause sure its possible, but its also possible that believing in God in some attempt to place your bets is the worst offense possible, as an article on Iron Chariots says. .. "Rather than the typical Christian god, what if we hypothesize the possibility of a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians, "We cannot understand the ways of God," so it is conceivable that such a god would want to reward atheists. " [1]Assertion number 2) Pro says about theists "Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything. .. .for eternity. "Pro doesn't have anything to back this up. Countering Pascal1) Pascal was working of the foundation by God he really meant the christian God as he saw the christian God. Previously I ask the rhetorical question of "Trouble is this argument can be used for the Islamic God or any God. Best to believe in the Islamic God eh ? After all if your wrong you lose nothing, if your right. .. .. .. .. paradise and virgins perhaps ? "Now there is a point here, if we take Pros advice about placing our God bets, which God shall we place our bet in ? It seems the case that the the believer of a God who rewards paradise and virgins can use the exact same logic of placing ones bet on this God as Pro uses. Pro doesn't seem to have an answer for this dilemma. 2) There are numerous claims about God, even in the same religions there are different claims made about God. Pro doesn't seem to dis agree with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in Gods name puts one at more risk than just doing evil or wrong doing not in Gods name. This concession refutes the claim about theists have nothing to lose as false and the argument that we should all become theists cause then we have nothing to lose is unsound. Sources [1] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...