"wholeheartedly what I believe" Key words. I hope you realize that while you think others are wrong in their opinion that Jesus doesn't exist, there are many who think you are wrong for believing he does exist.

I have difficulty imagining how Christianity would have gotten started if there hadn't been at least somebody pretending to be the son of God. I do not believe that Jesus was divine, but I see no reason to doubt someone named Jesus existed and was crucified any more than we should doubt that, say, Julius Caesar existed.

Two non-Christian historians from that time, Josephus and Pliny the Younger, mentioned Jesus and the movement surrounding him. That's a lot of corroboration for one non-nobleman living two thousand years ago.

So... I take it you're not together anymore?

that's not hardcore religious, that's psycho.

Ecctually, they are not mutually exclusive anymore if you don't take the Adam and Eve thing literally. Some priests and christian scientists have sucsesfully integrated evolution with the christian faith, because we still don't have proof of how the big bang accured, so basically, no proof that god doesn't exist! I personally am an atheist, but it is as much a leap of faith as religious beliefs. Eventhogh it makes much more sense.

#67, just want to point out to you that atheism is NOT as much a leap of faith as religions. Weak atheists have NO leap of faith. They do not claim that god/s do not exist. Just that there is no evidence that they do, so they probably don't. Note the 'probably'. Strong atheists may have a leap of faith; but less than the religious. They say that god/s definitely do not exist. Now the Judeo-Christian God I believe I can back up that He is logically impossible, therefore it is not a leap of faith to be a strong atheist in regards to this god, but I am a weak atheist to most others.

I would be very much interested in this explanation, I myself have a good basis for arguing that it is much more logical not to believe in any god than to believe. But here's the problem- you can't crush the religion, which is basically irational with logic, no metter how hard you try. Scientologists believe what science fiction writer told them, who olso said is much more profitable to form a religion.

lightburns: anyone who says that there is no evidence that God exists is blind. look around you. open your eyes.

you know what, sorry. that wasn't nice. BUT I would like to know what you, and 1Nobody1, say are your "good basises". I'll open my ears.

I'm sure blind people don't appreciate being an analogy for ignorance. Sight isn't the only sense.

okay you're right. smell things, feel things, listen to things, taste things, I would argue that it's everywhere, affecting every sense.

it is a rather long argument and I'm not a native-english speaker so it is very hard for me to explain. But to put it most simplistically- If you can scientifically explain that the universe was created by, let say big bang, why would you have the need for a greater instance? If it can be explained without the help of gods, why would you go looking for higher explanations? I'm not sure exactly, how the whole argument goes, but it is pretty convincing nevertheless. I'll try to look for it on the internet, maby I can find it in english somewhere...

I'm pretty sure atheist don't appreciate to be called ignorant too ;)

That would be great. I mean I know about the Big Bang theory, so you don't have to go finding something about that for me.. Plus I'm on the computer, I could look it up. anyway, I know what the big bang theory is, but as far as I've seen it, there is evidence to support it, but not enough to completely explain everything and make the big bang theory fact. There is also evidence for evolution, which I don't believe in either. That said, there is evidence for Christianity also, which other people don't believe in. The fact of the matter is that you have to have faith to believe anything- whether that be Christianity, the Big Bang theory, Scientology, Buddhism, anything. You also said if it can be "proven" through science, you don't feel like there's a need to "go looking for a higher power", but I would argue that it hasn't been proven, just that substantial arguments can be made. I guess I'm just looking for something more than "here's the Big Bang theory, read it". And I also didn't say Atheists are ignorant, just that "I would argue" that it affects all of the senses.

If you're looking for something more than "here's the Big Bang theory, read it", then why would you settle on "here's the Bible, read it"?

nelsons_ who said i settle with "here's the Bible, read it"?

You misunderstood me, I wasn't looking for the argument about the big bang, but the argument, why people should be looking for the greater power at all. Very good point, #169!

Oh okay. And yes, that was a good point, if only it were directed to the correct person.. Someone who actually would settle for "Here's the Bible. Read it." He's assuming that that's what I do.

But then what do you settle for as evidence towards God? Earlier you seemed set to convince us that existence itself is proof of God... you've got a premise and a conclusion, but no relation between the two. I filled it in with the only thing I know of that relates existence to God and claims to be proof of him - and that's the Bible.

I don't know what you believe, but let's just throw out there that you believe the Big Bang theory, just for the sake of this. If the Universe did in fact "expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition", how did the dense matter come into existence in the first place? How, scientifically, can something be made out of nothing? And I am referring to literally nothing- no oxygen, no hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, anything. Yes, scientists "create something out of nothing" all the time, but they are actually taking things that already exist.. All of these different elements.. And putting them together to create something new. Before that, before there was enough matter to condense or expand or explode to create lifeforms, how did that dense matter get there? It just appeared?

I can't say I've paid enough attention to the Big Bang theory to say if I believe it or not, and I don't know what the traditional "scientific" answer is for what you've asked. According to my understanding of it, I think it's plausible that it happened but not that nothing came before it. But on the other hand, I could ask you a similar question: if God created everything, where did he come from? I do like to toy with the idea of there being a power or existence that we can't yet understand... but why imagine it as a sentient being?

That something came out of nothing is possible if you can emagine (the science of phisics did explain it, I can't) that only after the big bang time and space were formed. Therefore scientist argue, you can't think in the same terms about something (i.e. nothing) that predates time and space.

I don't want to start an argument, but how else could everything have started, if there was nothing, as you said? Was there nothing but this deity floating around in the nothingness? I think its cool to believe in what you believe in, but sometimes you gotta ask questions.

217: Show me where they proved that you can make something out of completely nothing, please. That would be interesting. 220: Asking me, I'd say that to create something out of nothing, God is needed. Ask anyone else, I don't know, I'm not them. And as far as Him "floating around", I believe that not only can you not see Him, but in and of Himself He doesn't have to be matter, taking up space. Also, I'm not positive about all of the different sects of Christianity, as that's not my college major or anything, but as for mine, God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere all at once. I'm pretty sure no single form of matter can do that. I also realize that you're not trying to start an argument, and I'm all for questions. I even asked some a little earlier, though I don't expect you to go through and read the entire thread, to 1Nobody1 about where a firm basis in Atheism would come from. I'm all ears.

"If the Universe did in fact "expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition", how did the dense matter come into existence in the first place?...It just appeared?" How does adding a god to this change the question? it only pushes it back a layer. How did this god come into existence in the 1st place? he just appeared? why is that somehow more acceptable than the universe appearing?

thew, oh also, nelsons_ (sorry I didn't see your comment earlier): "But on the other hand, I could ask you a similar question: if God created everything, where did he come from?" My personal belief? Just has God has always existed and will always exist, so have we (people) always existed and always will. The universe is always in a cycle of creation, duration, and destruction, and rest. We see this to a small extent in the seasons. You can find texts that describe this in detail. Before this round of creation, God was doing what He always does. Enjoying His eternal pastimes in the spiritual sky. This universe is merely a material manifestation, whereas we are spiritual beings, trapped within material bodies. Before that? Before His "first" round of seasonal creation? Well, anything He wanted, I presume. Also, just because I believe something, doesn't mean I know EVERYTHING. Yes, I too have questions, but personally I think that God leaves some things a mystery on purpose, and I have seen parables and passages in the Bible that could give some reasons as to why.

I'm not trying to argue either, please keep that in mind, when I say this: You still haven't told us your basics for your personal belief. Not only you don't know everything, you, just like the rest of us, really know nothing. And my point is, it is much more logical to search for answers from the bottom to the top, not the other way around. You said you can feel, smell, taste god everywhere, please explain in what way can you do that, if you don't already presuppose god exists?

Yes, starting from the bottom, I just explained my thoughts on that.. That there is no humanly way to create something out of nothing.. But God is not human. As far as someone feeling God in all of their senses? How do you just fabricate smell, and assign it accordingly? And how did the eye just KNOW how to construct itself to see magnificent sights, turning the images, etc.. if it had never been done before? "It's in it's nature", but HOW did it get that nature? Chance? That's just as much of a leap of faith, if not more, than believing that things were made the way they were purposefully. Also, faith is not a hollow concept. My faith is sustained by a personal relationship with God, not just "Oh, I believe He's there, end of story". The relationship falls into an ineffable category, too. It cannot really be expressed or explained in words. In the end, "He who has faith does not need proof".

You're so smart for posting the most commonly used, most flawed paradox in this case. What if the hell that is described is a lie? What if i prefer enjoying the only life i believe i have, rather than hope not to eff up the eternity that may or may not exist? Thats like not going out, because you dont know if it will rain, even when the forecast and the weather outside call for clear skies

@58: That's assuming christians don't enjoy their lives on earth.

Okay, first, try knowing what a paradox is. Secondly, it may surprise you but Christians enjoy life just as much as the next fellow if not more. The only thing that separates us is a belief that for the most part doesn't affect our daily lives - just our ability to sleep in on Sunday, at worst. Personally I don't even go to church. But your analogy is incorrect. More logically it's like putting an umbrella in your car because you don't know if it will rain, even if the forecast is for clear skies. No inconvenience - just a little extra preparation.

I think if a god did exist he would only send you to hell if you were a bad person, not if you didn't believe in him. After all with all the possibilities of what could be on the other side it is impossible to know 100% what's there.

#66 - Some Christians believe hell is only for bad people, and others believe it is for all non-believers. Either way, as long as the latter possibility exists, it's still a much safer bet to be a Christian. My personal belief is indeed that you will only go to hell if you're a bad person, and I don't believe all atheists are going to hell. The world is set up to test our faith, after all. Hence no concrete "proof" of God until we die. But if atheists went to hell for failing this test, that would be entrapment, and that is illegal under U.S. law.

So you think you are so smart... You think God likes calculating people? Who believe out of fear and terror and hopes for gain (which is a false faith) more then those who live their lives by the principles they trully believe in, even if they are atheists? Is this your loving and just god?

You leave the others out because of lack of relevance? How's it irrelevant? Because, of course, the Christian god is the only one that can possibly exist right? What about the countless numbers of other gods that people believe in? What if Allah exists and sends you to hell with the atheists because you didn't believe in him? You can't just discount the others for no apparent reason. Not to mention that I highly doubt any all-knowing deity is going to be fooled by something as simple as pretending to believe in him simply so you can make it into heaven. And even then, if an all-loving god that Christians tend to preach does exist, I doubt he'd be so vain that he'd be sending people who do a lot of good to hell simply because they didn't believe in him. What you're trying to use to justify your belief is called "Pascal's Wager" and it's been criticised by many, many, maaaaany rational thinkers. Do some research into it, maybe it'll get you critically analysing things instead of just blindly following beliefs like you seem to do.

Pascal's Wager (i.e. the argument you just used) is fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the idea that there are ONLY two separate beliefs - Christianity and Atheism. What if some other religion is right, e.g. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism? And those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Think of a better argument next time.

#73 - I guess I'm not that smart, since I had such trouble understanding your grammar there...! I'm sorry, were you implying that Atheists have strongly-held beliefs and Christians don't? I have to admit, I usually hear that the other way around. What with the fact that one of the main definitions of atheism is the "lack of belief", after all. Some may be motivated by the fear of hell, but most are motivated by the reward of heaven. See, heaven's kind of a sweet deal. Put a little effort into your life on Earth of less than a century, and paradise is yours for eternity. #78 - Regarding lack of relevance, read the FML. It's about a Christian and (presumably) an Atheist. I guess he could be from another religion that doesn't believe in Jesus, but the rest of the commenters seem to have drawn the conclusion that he's Atheist anyway. Belief in God is not a pretend belief, nor is the bet of afterlife the cause of it in my case nor that of anyone I know. You're confusing the causality here - faith comes first, because someone who does not already believe in God would not qualify for it unless they were somehow able to change their beliefs for real. It's a sin of Pride, I'll admit that. It's just reasoning that we've made the right choice - but the choice requires you to have made it before the reasoning can be brought in. I'm reading up on the criticisms of "Pascal's Wager" right now, but they seem pretty weak. Is there any in particular you find plausible? My belief is similar to Pascal's theory, but it's not exactly 50/50.

#78 though i do also believe they shouldnt have ruled out the other religions by default but if i may add that there is no rule in the bible against believing in god out of fear. and also yes.. the all loving god would be so vain to punish those who defy him by the simple fact that he says "he is a jealous god" and thou shalt not worship "idol gods" and not to mention the fact that in this bible every other human being was sentenced to "suffer"[my own choice of words] because of something adam and eve did... so personally believe yes. god would be harsh enough to send those to hell for not believing.. after all.. if god really is the go written about there would be no problem in creating a new you to replace you right... just my opinion

#80 - In its simplest form, yes, it is flawed. If religion was that simple, people wouldn't be fighting wars over it. Actually, the monotheistic religions do like to share a belief that God will punish others who do not believe in him - yet even if each is believing in a certain vision/interpretation of God, they still share in common the vision of one omnipotent being, whatever they may call them. I'm not well-versed in Buddhism or Hinduism, but I don't recall either of them having a belief that people will go to hell for not believing in their deities. So yes, there is either belief in omnipotence or belief in a lack thereof. Take it to mean that the form of that omnipotence is irrelevant in one's belief. But even if God allows only one branch of faith into Heaven, and all others into Hell - you can't have faith in everything, but having faith in one of the options is still a better choice than none.

#93, atheism isn't defined as a lack of belief, but rather the belief that there, in fact, is no God. agnosticism is the lack of belief.

#100 iiimmm pretty sure atheism is lack of belief entirely.. and agnosticism is believing in an deity, just not any "god" .. you may wanna look back over that

#105, Agnosticism is actually the belief that it's impossible to know if in fact God, or any other type of deity really exists. They don't believe in a higher power just as much as do they believe in one. They simply believe that there is no possible way to know for sure that one exists. You may want to look back over that first.

@#93The fact that the FML is about a Christian and an atheist doesn't matter. The point you were trying to make is about belief and reality, which means you have to take any possibility into account and not take on an unrealistic assumption. On the pretend belief, I don't think I expressed my point particularly well. To clarify, by claiming that atheists are not smart because the "choice" they've taken on leads to no apparent benefits, you imply that atheists should be believing in God to avoid the negative effects, despite what evidence, reason, &c. they may have to not believe. That would be a pretend belief. By believing in God just to avoid going to hell, it would appear to me that you don't actually believe in God but rather just say you do so that you can convince yourself that you're not going to hell. I hope I explained that well, I tend to be bad at explaining things. I can't think of any specifically named criticisms for Pascal's Wager that I find plausible, but some of what I've mentioned here would count as such. @#97 The point I'm trying to make is not whether there's a rule in the Bible against believing in God out of fear, but whether you can actually have a belief in God because of fear. Would you believe in ghosts just because if they did exist, they could haunt your house? You also sort of point out the flaw in this all-loving God actually being all-loving. A lot of the behaviours you've described really seem to me to be antithetical to a being that loves everyone. @#100 Atheism actually is defined as a lack of belief, but it can be split into seperate categories that some label as "strong atheism" and "weak atheism". Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god, and weak atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Agnosticism refers to your state of knowledge. You could be an agnostic atheist, which would be "I don't believe in a god and I don't claim them not to exist" -- it's similar to weak atheism. You could be a gnostic atheist, which would be "I know there are no gods", which is the strong atheist stance. Similarly, you can be an agnostic theist, claiming "I believe there's a god but I don't know about the existence of them", which is what the common portrayal of an agnostic is -- a sort of wildcard of belief, if you will. And finally, you could be a gnostic theist, which would be saying "I know that this god exists".

dude you basically said what i just said.. but in more detail. DUH!

@105

and to112 i know i what i was saying about the all loving god thing and about the believing out of fear... im not a christian my point was that the religion is flawed. lol

About my grammar- pretty good for a Spaniard, I would say, but that is not the point. Believing in god because heaven is a sweet deal- hm... I would say that is greedy, don't you think? Wait...isn't that one of the 7 deadly sins? And definition of atheism is not lack of faith, my dear, just no faith in supernatural phenomena. And yes, there are many more fake, then real believers among christians, if you ask me.

#112 - Alright, alright, I was just trying to keep things simple by boiling it down to Christianity and Atheism! Lack of foresight on my part, should've known any argument on FML would never stay simple. See my post #99 for a more realistic form and explanation. And yes, I shouldn't have implied that Atheists are not smart. They tend to be, since it takes a bit of intelligence to deviate from indoctrination. But it's borne from a frustration that Atheists tend to consider theists beneath them in terms of intelligence. Not all of us blindly follow what we were taught - some of us think about it and then reconfirm it. I agree that a false belief would get you nowhere. It's more of an issue that after a choice has been made, the practitioners of religion have the better odds whether an afterlife should exist or not. Whether having faith in God, having a lack of faith in God, or even having faith in a lack of God, I'm sure probability is not going to change anyone's mind! I'm just trying to show that Christianity is not a stupid belief! I would like to reiterate, however, that my belief came long before my thought about the whole "Pascal's Wager" scenario (although I hesitate to call it that because my specific belief is slightly different), and is not a result of it! Good on ya for being civilized, and I apologize for deviating from that same civilized behaviour! How... un-Christian of me. Heh.

#118 - Sorry about the grammar thing. It can be too tempting to jab at people for grammar when I'm used to native English-speakers being so bad at it. :( "And definition of atheism is not lack of faith, my dear, just no faith in supernatural phenomena." I'm not sure I understand you here - "no faith" IS a "lack of faith". Or are you saying that you have faith in the lack of "supernatural phenomena"? I do agree that that exists - that's why I said "lack of faith" was one of the definitions of atheism - not THE definition. But like I said earlier - it's not believing in God because heaven is a sweet deal, it's learning morals because heaven is a sweet deal. It's used as a learning tool, almost, for teaching young Christians how to behave morally. As adults, we either have learned it and heaven is our reward - or we deviate from it, and hell is our reward. It's all about temptation and faith.

And if you don't have faith in dieties, you are only left with the faith in men. Which is much harder, I garantee it!

We could debate this with various religions, though, so merely being Christian as a safe bet for the potential afterlife is a flawed argument. For example, some sects of Christianity denounce others and claim they are going to hell - so which sect is correct? If you choose the wrong one, and the vindictive, jealous god does exist, then you go to hell. Another example is that some (generally more radical) sects of Islam believe that all infidels are damned. What if they are correct? Then anyone who doesn't follow those beliefs is screwed. Fear of a particular afterlife is no reason to convert to any particular religion. If it was, there would be no way to win, since there are so many different religions, and different sects within religions. Since there is no proof whether or not any of these particular religions is the One True Faith, it would make no sense to force oneself to convert on the basis of potential damnation. Belief in a doctrine, yes, but just fear of life after death? I can't comprehend it as an argument. So, if atheists are right, no one goes to hell. If Christian group A is right, everyone else goes to hell. If Christian group B is right, everyone else, including C(A) is damned. And so on, so forth, with varying belief systems.

In my opinion these debates are pointless

Wtf? FML took out parts of my comment -0- Nobody is going to get converted via FML

#148 - I explained it a little better in post #99. But I don't expect anyone to read this entire thread. Essentially my belief is that people who claim other monotheistic sects are wrong have vastly misinterpreted the core belief. That belief in one God, by any name, is acceptable and that only a lack of faith, entirely, is punishable. After all, that belief was passed down before many modern sects even existed. But even if we were to consider all possibilities, even the illogical ones that believe as only one sect can be the "one true faith"... having any faith at all is still a better possibility than having none. It's certainly no reason to convert from one religion to another. But it can help one be secure in one's faith.

Also to add to #148 post, why do Christians try to make Atheists fear hell when they don't believe in it? Why can't they accept that they don't believe in god and get on with something better with their lives. This is also the same the other way round with Atheists. You shouldn't really be parading around saying God and Jesus isn't real because it doesn't affect their religious view in the slightest, it just causes argument. Lets just express our views as views, and not ranked opinions. By the way I have no idea what will happen after we die, but I suspect we just become fertilizer for the grass. Might be wrong though!

#152 - How can you say it's pointless when you're already enjoying it with popcorn according to #146? ;)

#160 Now you're just getting absurd even from christians point of view, I'm sorry. Any faith is better than non at all? Does that mean that the first commandment is there just for fun? If I remember my dante correctly I think heretics go to about 7th or 8th circle of hell and atheist go to the first, which is kind of imitation of heaven. And monotheistic religions are predated by many others, like the anscient Greeks mytology and the kults of "barbaric" tribes and so on.

And what if the Jews are right? Then no one goes to hell.

Well, #162, Christians tend to be decent people. Not all of us, but most of us. As in, we don't want our friends and neighbours to burn in hell for all eternity, and we will try to prevent that by enforcing morals and good behaviour... and yes, those who believe that atheism will land you in hell will - unfortunately for those of you who don't believe and would rather not be bugged about religion - attempt to "save" you from that fate. #171 - The first commandment is unfortunately open to many skewed interpretations. It says nothing about belonging to the right branch of Christianity or even to the "right" religion. All it says is that God must be the only object of worship. "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before Me."

#181 You didn't entirely answer to my argument. And again... Morals and good behaviour cannot be inforced by the very definition of morallity! I believe Nietzsche was the one who said, that one can act morally for a thousand other reasons then morallity itself- you can do the right thing out of selfish reasons or because somebody else forced you too or out of fear of punishment- i'm sure you understand what I mean.

@181, Sorry if you mistook me but I meant that people shouldn't really be trying to convert people to their religion, because it is really up to them to make their own judgement and ask themselves "Is there a greater being?" and not for others to cram opinions down their throat until their ears bleed. Also, I would like to point out I believe I don't think anyone really wants to see anyone suffer in the afterlife, but since their their religion tells them to they accept that and that doesn't make them a bad person.

#195 - I'm not sure what you think I missed. The Dante reference was answered by the fact that a Christian should not be considered a heretic for believing in a slightly different sect. And the polytheistic religions, even the ones that have some sort of reward/punishment afterlife, don't really factor in since none of them have a doctrine that believers of a different faith will be punished in the afterlife. Unless you can point me to one that does, but I really don't recall any with that particular interpretation. Therefore they fall under the "if this group is right, no one automatically suffers for it for being wrong" category like Atheism. Morals... may not be enforceable, but that won't stop people from trying. They can, however, be taught and encouraged. #199 - Sorry, I agree with you that people should have the right to live their lives without religious bombardment. If Atheism is their choice, that's what it is. I certainly make my best efforts sometimes not to shove religion down peoples' throats - although my original post may not have been entirely faithful to my desired behaviour. I'm just trying to offer up a reason for those who do try to convert people. They see it as though their friends and neighbours are walking straight for an undesirable path - that is, for instance, the path from Atheism to Hell. I guess it's similar to watching one walk straight for a cliff over jagged rocks. They try to stop them from choosing what they see as the "wrong direction". It can be annoying to those who don't believe, but please remember that their heart is in the right place at least.

@199, You're right that we (Christians), or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be trying to "force their beliefs down your throat", but I also have seen it happen way too many times where someone disregards a group of people just because of one person or a few encounters.. Absolutely nobody is perfect, and if Christians are, for lack of a better phrase, "doing as they should be", then that means that we should be living Christ-like lives... And Christians, if they've read any of the Bible where Jesus is alive- the New Testament- would know that Jesus never forced it on anybody. He let them take it or leave it. It's a shame that so many Christians, myself included, have tried to push their beliefs on other people, but all I can do is try not to. That said, it's not just a problem with the Christian faith, as one obvious example would be this entire thread: I've read many comments on here from people who don't believe in Jesus trying to tell me and others how stupid we are, and why we should change.

Don't worry #202 you make valid references to what (some) Christians believe to provide us with information. If you said "All Atheists burn in hell and you will to." or (if you were atheist) "Their is no Jesus and your dumb in believing." you would be ramming useless words into peoples thoughts. Personally I think you are a kind and insightful person who has a respectable knowledge for what he believes, which I really respect.

You what some people are saying is that you should believe in God just in case he exists. If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.

#215 - I see what you mean. I for one choose to believe in a loving God - if only because the alternative, frankly, scares me. But a good God, one that does forgive people for being misled - that is a God to worship! #211 - Thanks, dude, and right back at ya! I started off way too defensive expecting harsh attacks, and instead I found people like you with reasonable, respectful responses. I was definitely the instigator here and although I apologize, I don't regret it because it's been rather enlightening. Thank you. I'm heading to bed - might pop in again tomorrow if this thread's not locked by then.

Pascal's wager has been debunked many times it doesn't even make sense. If it is between only atheism and Christianity the you have a point, however, there are many other religions besides Christianity. For example let's say the argument was between Christianity, atheism, and Islam. If we use your logic you have just as great a chance of going to hell as an atheist does. Now let's look at every religion in the world. There are hundreds of them and you only believe in one, but what if another one is right? If we use your logic where every belief has an equal chance of being correct then your chance of going to hell or some other bad place is greater than 99%