You are all wrong.... Here I refute the validity of the argument that, because believing in god promises good payoffs, you should (at least: pretend to) believe in God, and I show that the popular counterarguments against Pascal's Wager (as the argument is called) are flawed... There are four parts... ok, I should make my reservations as for the regular counterarguments a bit clearer as I fear they are rather obscurely formulated orally in the vid...: doxastic voluntarism/only an argument for pretending to believe: what if that suffices and God is keen on having hypocritical followers -- this is after all a logical possibility supported also by how god is presented in the Abrahamic religions as cruel, jealous etc... religious hucksterism: again, if god likes that, what would you like to do given you cannot change that? many religions/why not believe instead in Zeus or...: the argument still runs through: for "if God exists" simply put "if *your* god exists (as the only true, rewarding God he's supposed to be in your religion)", then if all alleged Gods are also alleged to reward you with an eternal afterlife, then the argument is still standing in the way it would if there were only one religion apart from disbelief!!! Grant (as you should even as an atheist) that any God's existence has a probability of non-zero and grant ex hypothesi that any God will, if he exists, reward you with an infinite afterlife, then pretending to believe in any God will -- given his cruelty, jealousy, wickedness etc... -- promise a better payoff than not (at least pretend to) believe. Replies to Flappy: For all we know, God may hate the pretender more than an honest atheist. WHENCE THAT KNOWLEDGE?? What if by listening to masses etc. you are actually offending God? STILL, PASCAL'S WAGER IS NOT THAT EASY TO KILL (as you say: "what if...?" it's just a possibility -- and a highly implausible one, see below) THE TINY CHANCE THAT GOD MIGHT LIKE THAT AND, IF EXISTENT, REWARDS YOU INFINITELY PROVIDES ENOUGH REASON TO PRETEND TO BELIEVE RATHER THAN NOT BELIEVE... THE ATHEIST WAGER DOES NOT COMMIT YOU TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, SO IS NO DISARMING COUNTERARGUMENT, BECAUSE IT STILL RELIES ON THE EXISTENCE OF AN HONEST GOD, SO IT IS FUCKING INCOHERENT... Perhaps God is really Allah? Or Zeus? I REFUTED THAT IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT, NEXT TO VID... THIRD POINT.... We can't know if God will [punish or*] reward us for our worship (real or pretend). YES; BUT DECISION-THEORETICALLY, GIVEN THE -- ALBEIT MERELY POSSIBLE -- INFINITE REWARD; EVERY TINY CHANCE THAT HE WILL SUFFICES; YOU MUST TURN TO SOMETHING I PRESENT IN PT3/4 TO REFUTE THE WAGER, PASCAL WAS A THEIST, BUT A WHOLE LOT SMARTER THAN MOST ATHEISTS SEEM TO THINK... * that's a good objection, but why should God punish us for worship; yes you might say as I do that it may be *possible* that God punishes the worshippers and rewards antitheists but this is really too strong a premise to be taken seriously... A god that likes those that celebrate "him" in masses even if they in fact do not think he exists is at least something we can relate to just as we can relate to an emperor who likes fake worship even if he fucked up... but someone who PUNISHES worshippers and REWARDS opponents is so odd that you cannot start an argument with that.