Would someone please post a good write-up of the Atheist's Wager?

There are a few different versions... Here's the one I'm most familiar with:

If a benevolent God exists, he would most likely reward virtuous people. I don't know what he would do to vicious people.

Therefore, in order to receive such a reward, I ought to act virtuously.

The decision matrix is as follows:

Benevolent God and me acting virtuously: Infinite reward.

Benvolent God and me acting evil: I don't receive an infinite reward.

No God and me acting virtuously: No reward, no punishment, but I'll feel good.

No God and me acting evil: No reward, no punishment, but I'll feel bad.

In both cases (whether or not God exists) my greatest expected value is received through being a virtuous person, so I will be a virtuous person.

Personally i like William James' treatment of Pascals' Wager the best. Especially this part:

"You probably feel that when religious faith expresses itself thus, in the language of the gaming-table, it is put to its last trumps ... We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation lack the inner soul of faith's reality; and if we were of the Deity, we should probably take pleasure in cutting off believers from their infinite reward. It is evident that unless there be some pre-existing tendency to believe in masses and holy water, the option offered to the will by Pascal is not a living option. ..."

What Do you have to Loose? Or Why take the chance?

I love Pascal's wager because it is based on faulty reasoning.

1. That God is loving,

2. That one religion is better than another and determining the true religion is possible.

The Atheist Wager,

Why choose to believe in a God that might not be true, and If he happens to exist causes so much pain and suffering in the world, and is willing to torture your family members for eternity?

Euclid's posted link was excellent.

the sentence or two found there that touched upon the nature of 'belief' and its relationship to 'volition' said nicely something that I have tried to express in a handful of discussions:

"... Does it not, on the surface of it, seem preposterous to talk of our opinions being modifiable at will?... Can we, by any effort of our will, or by any strength of wish that it were true, believe ourselves well and about when we are roaring with rheumatism in bed, or feel certain that the sum of the two one-dollar bills in our pocket must be a hundred dollars? We can say any of these things, but we are absolutely impotent to believe them... "

to say that we "choose" to believe something seems to me to be the self-contained indicator-flag of "Faking it".

a belief that is "chosen" must be "false"

at least it sure walks that way, talks that way ... and for several who have endured :

"congregational peer-pressure in a pew"

... it feels that way.

fake

please excuse my digression, it's late at night

too much struggle in one life

I would, but I save all of MY wagering for downtown Vegas,

This one at wikipedia looks good to me.

Well, at least you're honest about pasting.

Why not make your own?

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal

I assume you meant a refutation of Pascal's. :D