Hmm I wouldn't mind if I were wrong at all. It's interesting because it isn't that atheists WANT god to not exist - they just do not believe that he does. It isn't really our fault as much as it's "god's."
And I think spending eternity with Satan may possibly be better than with Yahweh.
What if Islam were the one true religion? What if Judaisim were the one true religion and Jesus was delusional or a scam artist or just mistaken? What if Hinduism is the one true religion? What if the Greek or Roman or Norse or Chinese or Japanese or Aztec or Egyptian or North American Native gods were the only true gods? (etc., etc. -- insert your favorite ancient pantheon) What if the Mormons are right? What if the Scientologists are right? What if the Summum religion invented by Clyde "Corky" Nowell in 1975 is the one true religion? Why don't you believe in the Heaven's Gate cult, Charles Manson's cult, Jim Jones's cult?
The same reason you don't believe in any of them, xtian, is the reason we don't believe in Jesus.
Think hard about that, xtian, and then let's discuss.
I find that showing confidence when asked this question works best. For instance, answering with.. "well then I'm wrong, and I would accept the possible consequences of not believing rather than believe out of fear." I try not to be too aggressive when answering questions like this. Telling them that the question is logically invalid as an argument because the question can easily be inverted against themselves as well is a little harsh and would only show them my discontent with their faith. Its a good way to make a theist turtle up lol.
I agree that atheists cannot pretend that an argument is valid. It honestly depends on the situation. I consider debating a theist somewhat of a game. Dropping little subliminal attacks against his reasoning in most answers, while still letting him believe that he is not being cornered. Like how in my above post I implied that accepting consequences for not believing is better than believing out of fear. He does not feel threatened yet still is presented with a reasonable response. But your right, we shouldn't pretend and tuck our tails. Never =)
heh, its not meant to refute the question. It's meant to block it. It's an invalid question. Also, the response "I don't believe out of fear!" is not a refutation, merely a defensive statement. If a theist said that to me, I would only shrug and say that I don't believe out of fear either.. effectively solidifying that the question is logically invalid, and pointless.
Your argument can be expanded to, "what if you're wrong? Isn't it better to believe, just in case?" This is a common Christian Apologetic argument known as Pascal's Wager, popularized by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal. It goes something like this:
"If god does exist, and you believe in Him, then you're in Heaven, and all is good. If god does not exist, and you do believe in Him, then what have you lost?"
The main argument against this "wager", and where it falls apart, is when you consider ALL of the gods out there. Which god do I believe in? Yahweh? Krishna? Buddha? Vishnu? L. Ron Hubbard? Some other god that I haven't heard of? How can I be sure I am believing in the right god? The odds are that I will pick the wrong one, so Pascal's Wager falls apart when considering the odds alone, much less any other higher philosophical arguments.