Hell is something you have to accept exists in order to be terrorized by it. I was raised in a Christian faith that doesn't believe in hell.

But the problems with Pascal's Wager are many, and here's my primary issue with it: Having realized that faith is an invalid construct upon which to base one's understanding of the universe, I cannot summon a belief in something that logic and reason scorn. Even if I tried, I could not believe in God at this point--my 'faith chip' has been fried!

Pascal encourages 'faking it until you make it,' but not only is this disgraceful behavior disingenuous, it ignores the simple fact that some of us are simply incapable of being convinced of something without evidence, or, as is the case with religion, evidence to the contrary.

Not possible for a real all-knowing god type dude.

Fails on many fronts. For the most part I agree with this video.

Don't be too impressed with those supposed "end-time prophecies". The apocalyptic literature was not written to predict events to happen thousands of years later. Besides the two prominent writings in the biblical canon, Daniel and Revelation (AKA Apocalypse of John), there were literally heaps of other apocalyptic writings mostly written pseudonymously (that is, claiming to be written by figures such as Enoch, Peter, Abraham, and any number of figures in Hebrew/Christian lore). These highly symbolic writings were usually written with two time frames in mind, first to critique the current scenario in a highly encoded way (Daniel is mostly addressing 2nd temple Judah around the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, Revelation is late 1st century) and then often make a short-term prediction of a radical change in circumstances that will bring an end to the current suffering that brought about the need for the writer to be writing the apocalypse. Daniel actually tries to predict a time shortly after its time of writing, which is right around 167 BCE and then fails at it. Revelation mostly describes the times around 90-ish CE, and most of what you see in those writings correspond to something in the Roman empire. In fact, the "beast" whose number is 666 (or 616 in some manuscripts) is none other than Nero Caesar. Again, these were not written to anticipate anything thousands of years later so I can confidently say not to be concerned about any of it predicting modern events.

To the extent any bit of it seems to map to any point in history, consider that to be what is inevitable whenever such vague symbolic language is used. Much of these two books can be creatively mapped to any given century in history, and in fact HAVE. Every generation for 2,000 years have thought they were living in the end-times.

A nice representation of how this works is to just look at Nostradamus and see how this has been mapped to event after event, though always retrospectively, because every time anyone then tries to say what is ABOUT to happen because Nostradamus said so, it turns out to be wrong. I had a friend back in the mid 1980s who was absolutely certain that Nostradamus had been dead on accurate up to that point in time and that he predicted the end of the world right around the year 2,000, and here we are a whole 20 years after that and as far as I can tell we're still here. I don't think that old friend owns up these days to having ever thought what he thought in 1985.

It's not an argument for the existence of a god, but is an emotional plea to sway someone to take up a belief absent any actual compelling arguments for that god's existence. I realize I'm speaking of gods in the generic when the argument is always posed as a reason to believe a very specific claim but that's exactly why this is a terrible argument, or at least one of several reasons. That is, it can pretty much be used to argue that someone should take up belief in any god which is associated with any sort of reward/punishment system for belief/nonbelief. Another problem would be that taking up belief in the wrong god might anger whichever of the many others might actually be real (assuming any are). And yet another problem would be that we can't just choose to believe in something like this which we would have otherwise found implausible. If we don't believe, we don't believe, and "just in case" doesn't get us to actually believing. If that god did happen to exist, how impressed would it be that you feigned belief just to avoid punishment and maybe get a prize in case it happened to turn out to be true? I don't think I need to even get into the inherent problems with the notion of eternal punishment and how that can't be compatible with the sort of being they usually propose, though it would be compatible with a psychotic deity who seems like you wouldn't really want to worship anyway. So in short, I'm not too impressed with Pascal's Wager.

Is BS in the real world.
It only is relevant if there is one god. Even then is still bullshit.

It is the worst apologetic ever, because it can just as easily applied to any and all "gods" and thus proves nothing (especially not loyalty and fidelity) and even if true for some god is still a bad bet, because it is basically a cheat.

Someone close to me is very concerned about all this endtime stuff and that I'll be tortured for eternity and then went into detail of how the Bible describes the rapture, apacolypse, and being left behind. I hate living in fear like this!! And I feel like there is this ultimatum: now or never, repent or reject. It will be too late and you'll be burning for eternity with fire hotter than the sun. (No wonder Christianity has survived so long.) What baffles me is how Christians believe that this kind of abusive god is loving enough to have a real relationship with people.