I presume that an education of the world has brought you (whoever -you- are, I apologize for not taking the time to personalize this message) to the conclusion of a truth in atheism. Surely, then, as an educated individual, you have come across in your studies what is referred to as “Pascal’s Gambit”.
If not, this idea, published by Blaise Pascal, explains that because there is no reason to prove or disprove the existence of God, then we must make a wager. If we gamble that God exists and we are right, then we win an eternity of happiness. If we suppose that God does not exist, and we are right, then we have lost or gained nothing, we will die and that will truly be the end. Once we are dead we will have no remorse for what we did while we lived. We will have no consciousness, no rationality, no reason, and no life. That is death without a God.
However, if there is a God, and we wagered to the contrary, then we have lost everything. We have lost eternity in Paradise, and earned infinite pain, everlasting suffering, and agony without end.
The question then is: what risks are we willing to take? Are we so certain, despite the lack of evidence for either argument, that God does not exist simply because he does not cooperate with the laws of the natural world? Or do we accept, even though it is illogical, that God is real for the sake of what we have to lose?
I have decided. This wager, this “Pascal’s Gambit,” uses logic where there is no logic. It reasonably justifies faith in a Creator. Christianity is quite arguably a flawed doctrine overall, and the Bible is certainly easy to misinterpret and is filled with obvious contradictions. But these fallacies are not evidence that God does not exist. There is no evidence of that. Nor is there evidence that He does exist.
Therefore, we must make a wager. God may not play dice, but we can.
I give an overview of my thoughts on Pascal’s Wager in my Why Risk Being an Atheist? tract.
In a nutshell, I think that Pascal is offering two choices where there are many, many choices available. Even if we decided to gamble that a deity exists, what do we do then? We have to then place another wager on which deity exists. And another on whether any religion truly represents the deity’s desires. And another on which religion is interpreting those desires correctly. And another on whether or not choosing our beliefs in this way will please the deity or make it scornful.
In my opinion, Pascal’s wager isn’t much help at all.