User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1375165-20100706213224

That's an interesting point you just brought up SouthWriter, about being on "His" side in the end. It's very similar to Pascal's Wager.

For those of you who don't know, Pascal's Wager states, in a very complex format, that people can either live their life believing (in) God, or not believing in God (Though agnostics consider themselves to be "on the fence", its tantamount to not believing). If there is a God, who rewards belief, then the believers get their paradise, and the non-believers miss out. There's infinite reward on one side, and 0 on the other (or negatively infinite if they go to Hell).

Even if He doesn't exist, then both sides simply get a "small reward" (however they lived their life) and nothing else. So assuming there's a 50/50 probability in either case (existence or non-existence), then by believing you could either be infinitely rewarded, or simply be rewarded in life. Disbelievers, by the same probability, could be infinitely punished, or simply be rewarded in life. By this logic, Pascal says, belief in God is the best choice.

Personally, I don't think this is a necessary argument, as it forgoes the point of faith (belief without logical proof or evidence), but for many people it works as a reason to believe. There are also several refutations to the wager, many of which, particularly Dawkins' rebutal, are flawed, but I bring this up anyway for the purpose of stimulating discussion.