[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=flyer]As has been discussed, the prosperity gospel is definitely big business but, according to the terms of most organized religions, you don’t receive the benefits without complying with the terms, so, per that premise, taking advantage of the benefits may or may not work out work out for those who don’t comply with the terms.

Personally, I find no reason or need to argue about it one way or the other–as none of us will really know until after we take that last breath–and, perhaps, not even then. In the meantime–enjoy![/quote]

I don’t know. it’s pretty risky to not believe…

“Pascal’s Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal’s Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal’s posthumously published Pensées (“Thoughts”). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal’s Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism

The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.”[/quote]

Great quote, and no worries, scaredy. We’re believers, but we just don’t find the need to debate our beliefs publicly. Interestingly, from this discussion–it’s clear there are many viewpoints on this topic–even some that appear to be argued from conflicting perspectives.
(Not really clear as to how one can be an atheist and a believer.)

Conflicting perspectives seem quite common though, since, from my experience, it appears most Christians don’t believe Catholics have the answer to eternal life and vice versa etc., etc.–but my previous point was that the big business of the prosperity gospel that has been discussed, may present a false sense of entitlement to the benefits of a belief–without having to comply with the terms of that belief. That’s a nice selling point–but, as you mentioned would be considered “risky” from the viewpoint of those who believe the terms precede the benefits.
In the meantime, we’re loving this life, and wish the same to everyone.