Damoclessword response:

sissensteudal, Your take on this was more in depth than mine, but it is hard to argue with Pascal's wager.

Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to Damoclessword:

Okay, now I'm going to try to dissect this into a few of my thoughts...which would mean it's a hypothesis right now or a theory...can't quite remember which way it goes, but I hope you can catch my drift. Please do bear with me; I've just returned from two college classes and had to diagram musical chord structures and connect them with other chords in one of the classes...at 8 o'clock in the morning.

Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

My argument: This will still apply in my philosophy: everyone's right since everything "is". So... an agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence. I think this is true in a sense because everyone is right, in that they can only base "truth" as they know in accordance with their limited senses (i.e.--everyone's individual perceptions). Their perceptions are of this world, therefore, they are correct--if what is correct is all that "is" in the universe as a principle of one big reality thing, being, on its own. And, in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics he talks about how everyone strives toward what they percieve (based on reasoning from past experiences/what they would pick according to what genetic material they contain with environment influencing those DNA strands of each individual) as the good...or the positive. I've got some arguments for Aristotle because of scientific advancements of things we learn today, hence the environmental affects on DNA, but I can't get into that here...it's for a later time whenever I try to decode Aristotle...this weekend for the most part. Now...where was I? Okay, I think I may have covered that first part. I'll come back after I post if I see something I'm surely missing.

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

My argument, from the philosophy I'm testing as my own now, goes like this in comparison to that: everyone's right. Also, where is the grey area? How can "God" either exist or "God" doesn't exist? In what definition of God are you choosing? How can it be both so that I can test that my philosophy-in-progress is right again?
All of our perceptions are of this world, and of this world is all that we have as what "IS"...not what is right or wrong, but what "IS", i.e. all that "IS" is what is BOTH right and wrong, because it "IS", and what is right to one's perception is wrong to another's, right? Hehe.
"God" which can release the wrath of Hell on you if you do "bad", and also reward you with Heaven if you do "good" is only a limited, and for the most part in this region, solely a Christian God. If God created everything, and God created man to do right as according to what they perceive as "right" or "good", then the idea of predestination comes into play, i.e. no free will, etc. but everyone's still right, although the ones who are wrong go to Hell. What and who is wrong, then? (So far, I'm kind of leaning toward Anything that we do that is wrong or harmful against others that we KNOW is wrong to their perceptions of what is "good" is a major strike in the game (as in absolutely wrong), which also goes with the saying: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto [your self].")
Now, how do I make the Bible right? (My philosophy doesn't wish to disprove anything, but rather to see how everyone's philosophy is right and how¡Kmaybe people could have gotten the wrong ideas from misreading their book on life due to wrong translations everywhere of what the great philosopher Jesus was trying to tell us.) Anyway, how to make the Bible right...all I can say right now is this (until I die, then I may or may not be able to "say" anything and, based on deceased friends and acquaintances, won't be able to get in touch with you good folks anyway): There, in some context, HAS to be a Hell and a Heaven. I know there is one because people "know"/believe in both; therefore, in the context that their thoughts are of this world, Heaven is true, but that's not enough, right? Although, it's my main argument to PROVING it by "commonsense", so here's a theory to go with that "commonsense" truth. IF there is ONLY the big reality of every particle of universal matter = universe = all there is, how can Heaven and Hell still exist? Could it be possible that it exists in our everyday lives and "Life is what you make it"...as in you can make life Heaven on Earth, or Hell on Earth if you'd rather? Yeah, I know: how can we make life Hell on Earth if all we do is what we perceive as good? That question brings me back to my last sentence in the former paragraph:
(So far, I'm kind of leaning toward Anything that we do that is wrong or harmful against others that we KNOW is wrong to their perceptions of what is "good" is a major strike in the game (as in absolutely wrong), which also goes with the saying: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto [your self].")
So, if one KNOWINGLY does to another something that, by their ethical standards, is wrong, then Hell is going to come upon them somehow down the line in this life¡Kif you believe in karma. Karma works like this: in Psychology I, I learned that people learn to act in certain patterns, according to their psychology of what they have learned to do given any situation BASED on PAST SITUATIONS. (Pavlov's dog experiment Simulation --> Response). There, they obtain what we call Patterns of Behavior. SO! If a person, according to their behavioral patterns, learns to (pardon my toned-down French) "screw another person over" and get by, then eventually the people he/she screws over will amount to enough that no one will wish to work with that person anymore, or will wish to pay the other person back, if they believe in the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" ("leg for leg") method. Karma will work on the person either way. The person doing wrong will get hurt, or will have to act unlike him/herself in ordinary situations in order to trick others to like them. When they do that, they aren't acting themselves, and the person's so-called friends don't really like or know the person, do they? That equals Hell on Earth for the person to know they can't be themselves any time during the only shot they, as THAT person, have. Eventually, if the sorry, wrongdoing person will come back into play because of behavioral patterns, all their friends will hate them FOR BEING THEIR TRUE SELF! Eureka! If you bring me other situations, I'll try to work it in if you get me back into the terms of my context here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

What are these sinful pleasures? Anything in the Bible could have been mistranslated over and over again, and we don't have Jesus "in the flesh" telling us what was said. I know, Moses wrote down the ten commandments, and they're all right, too...although I have a few questions for one or two of them. I'll write my questions soon.
The only sinful pleasure I've been able to realize that will be a Hell regardless is what I mentioned twice earlier, and will be more than happy to recopy here:
(Anything that we do that is wrong or harmful against others that we KNOW is wrong to their perceptions of what is "good" is a major strike in the game (as in absolutely wrong), which also goes with the saying: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto [your self].")
NOW! I've already explained how this basic wrongdoing will amount to Hell on Earth regardless. Therefore, it is not a sinful pleasure to enjoy for long, because karma will make sure that the bad will outweigh the good in the end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

I've already described AGAIN how, either way, these "sinful pleasures" everyone would "wish" to endure would not be "pleasures" at all.
(Anything that we do that is wrong or harmful against others that we KNOW is wrong to their perceptions of what is "good" is a major strike in the game (as in absolutely wrong), which also goes with the saying: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto [your self].")

I'm probably missing something. Please help; otherwise I'll fix anything that I see I didn't add as soon as I see I didn't add it!