I truly feel sad for the unbelievers. They have no idea how much joy Christ brings into our lives. They have no expectation of receiving blessings or the gift of an eternal afterlife.
Peace, serenity, and abundance eludes them.
I do have peace, serenity and abundance. I also have several Christian friends and relatives who are far from serene. Out of all the people I know, the one who I think most has "peace, serenity and abundance" is Buddhist.
Like all beliefs, we could be wrong about this. There is a chance, a very small chance we could be wrong. That is why it is a belief. That small doubt is removed by a personal relationship with Christ who affects our lives on a daily basis with abundant blessings however.
What do you mean by a "personal relationship with Christ"?
What sort of blessings?
Just the same, we could be wrong about this. If we are wrong, we are no worse off. We will never know we are wrong. Can the unbeliever say this? :help:
There are plenty of religions that preach that worship of a false god is punished worse than worship of no gods at all. If you're wrong and they're right, you would be worse off.
If this life is everything and you sacrifice part of it or give of yourself in ways that you wouldn't otherwise, you'll have thrown away a large part of what you have and are. If religion makes you happy or encourages you to do good things, great, but I'd say those who
endure religion specifically because of the promise of divine reward, and those who are driven by religion to do things they would otherwise find wrong, would be much better off without an incorrect religion.
The logic you're putting forward here is exactly the same as the type that's used in a number of frauds and scams: give a person a promise of great reward in future (e.g.
"You've won the British lottery! You're a millionare!" or
"You can go to paradise for eternity after you die!"), then ask for something that seems small when compared to the promised reward, but is huge compared to what the person actually has (e.g.
"All you need to do is give us $5,000 for 'taxes'!" or
"All you need to do is dedicate your life to Christ!"). It seems to me that your logic applies to both equally. I (along with most sensible people, I hope) would automatically recognize the British lottery scam for what it is and reject the offer. Why should an atheist, who presumably does not have the "personal relationship with Christ" that you do to inform his decision, accept this logic in the one case, when they should clearly reject it in the other?
The Atheist's better hope they are right. Believing they have no soul in an afterlife could prove devastating if they are wrong. Just like the believer, they could be wrong about this too. :sorry1:
As I mentioned before, there are plenty of religions that preach that worshippers of "false gods" will be worse off than those who worship nothing. There are also plenty of religions that preach that everyone will go to Heaven, or that there is no afterlife at all. It's by no means clear that any random theist will be better off in the hereafter than any random atheist.
It is clear, however, that the demands of religion can often be a heavy cost to bear for a person in the here-and-now. To decide that they're negligible means that you've already made up your mind that your religion is right.
In a multi-religion scenario, Pascal's Wager (i.e. the argument you're putting forward) would have us accept the religion with the best version of Heaven and the worst version of Hell, regardless of personal cost on Earth and regardless of the likelihood that it's true... and just like the "standard" Pascal's Wager, it'd be a sucker bet.
Pascal's Wager isn't really an argument for religion; it's a way for theists to thumb their nose at atheists.
