Most Atheists who are willing to discuss why they believe God doesn’t exist will say there isn’t any — or enough — evidence to convince them He does. The little evidence which an Atheist may concede exists doesn’t meet the threshold to abandon their atheism. Regardless of what I or other Christians believe about whether the evidential threshold has been met, I’d like to pose a question to my Atheist readers.
For the sake of argument let’s grant that the quantity and quality of evidence, according to your standard, brought the probability of whether God exists to 50%. In other words, it was as equally probable that God exists as doesn’t according to your own criteria. Presuming agnosticism is not an option, ould you choose theism or atheism?, and equally as important, why?
As for me, I tend to be a fairly pragmatic person. Rarely do I make snap decisions if I don’t have to, I tend to weigh options before making decisions — often I’m chided for over-thinking things. So I can think of reasons for either choice.
On the one hand, if the evidence were truly 50/50, choosing theism would be the prudent choice. For all the criticism Pascal’s wager receives, if God’s existence were as probable as not, choosing with eternity in mind makes the most sense. A “good time” now pales in comparison to the hereafter to follow. It would be better to sacrifice relatively trivial indulgences now for everlasting greatness.
Conversely, adopting atheism affords me to be more liberal in my activities. Just knowing myself and how I used to be, I would absolutely live as though there were no judgement to come. I know myself, I’m not that good of a person. Currently my religious convictions keep me in check. Not so much because I’m afraid of hell, even though there’s nothing wrong with that. But because I do feel a sense of gratitude toward Christ, my impulses to act instinctively have been curbed.
So I really could go either way, but ultimately I would likely choose for God because I tend to think and act for long-term cost/benefit.