Pascal's Wager

DeletedUser

Can I just point out that Pascal failed to take into account that in his wager he is in effect staking 1/7th of his life (every Sunday) on the idea that the sky fairies will look after him when he dies.

Now as a scientist I'd say that isn't a particularly good bet based on no evidence to live your life adhering to the badly mangled ramblings of a bunch of shamen who lived 4or5000 years ago. Of course that doesn't take into account the fact that he probably had very few options on what else to do on a Sunday when he made the bet.
 

DeletedUser

There are a lot of posts here and I confess I haven't read them so forgive me if I am repeating a point someone else made.
Surely deciding to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God because you lose nothing in doing so is a ridiculous argument. Any almighty being worth his/her salt would see you for the fraud that you are and keep the pearly gates shut.
I've always wondered why very bad people take the last rites. It just seems illogical to me that you can do what you like and at the last minute repent just in case. :blink:

Toko22 said:
You might say that there are two "types" of atheists - strong and weak.

Strong - "God doesn't exist".

Weak - "I lack a belief in God".
Click to expand...

I thought the later were agnostics. N'est pas?:eek:hmy:


PLEASE DON'T EDIT ME AGAIN - I REALLY CAN'T GET THE HANG OF THIS MULTI-QUOTING THINGY!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I thought you were too religious Toko. Doesn't it say in the Bible something about drunkeness?
 

DeletedUser

James the Hunter said:
I thought you were too religious Toko. Doesn't it say in the Bible something about drunkeness?
Click to expand...

The bible also says you should kill adulterers, whilst at the same time condemning murder, and decrees an eye for an eye.

Understand why people belive that crap if you can.
 

DeletedUser

Agnosticism is often misunderstood for wishy washy. In a technical sense, agnosticism merely means, "there is no evidence for or against; the jury's out, and so am I." In an existential sense, agnosticism is the purest form of wagering --- a chip on every number to the roulette wheel of existence.

Technically, I would say i'm agnostic. Existentially, I would say I'm atheist. It's all in or all out, and I prefer all out; I'm keeping my chips, thank you very much. No real point in adding yet one more lie to our existence, now is there?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

If this whole thing were merely a bet, then I'd be all in. I'd bet everything. I'd be a hardcore fundamentalist. But even someone like me, who'll bet on the worst odds in the world*, won't bet on something with a probability of zero.

*(Actually, the worst odds in the world are those things with a probability of zero. So I guess I'd bet on the second-worst odds in the world)
 

DeletedUser

John Rose said:
The bible also says you should kill adulterers, whilst at the same time condemning murder, and decrees an eye for an eye.

Understand why people belive that crap if you can.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to read the rest of the Bible (I got through Genesis, laid it down to eat dinner, and forgot it) but I'm sure there's exceptions to the Commandments.
 

DeletedUser

Thomas Franklin said:
I'm going to have to read the rest of the Bible (I got through Genesis, laid it down to eat dinner, and forgot it) but I'm sure there's exceptions to the Commandments.
Click to expand...

I think Jesus says to cast aside many of the old testament laws. Thats probably one of those laws.
 

DeletedUser

Thomas Franklin said:
I'm going to have to read the rest of the Bible (I got through Genesis, laid it down to eat dinner, and forgot it) but I'm sure there's exceptions to the Commandments.
Click to expand...

Oh, so there are exceptions to the commandments of your allpowerful, allknowing god?
How quaint.

Breth said:
I think Jesus says to cast aside many of the old testament laws. Thats probably one of those laws.
Click to expand...

Great, we got ourself a dinner bufé.
 

DeletedUser

John Rose said:
Great, we got ourself a dinner bufé.
Click to expand...

Yea, I want a fried chicken dinner with gravy on the taters... But really, I've read the old testimate and the new, and really you can't have one over the other; otherwise that would mean you would be lacking a point in following it, (not to say you already are or are not, just a bit of a both sided opinion there for everyone.)
 

DeletedUser

David Schofield said:
Yea, I want a fried chicken dinner with gravy on the taters... But really, I've read the old testimate and the new, and really you can't have one over the other; otherwise that would mean you would be lacking a point in following it, (not to say you already are or are not, just a bit of a both sided opinion there for everyone.)
Click to expand...

Your wrong, with the coming of jesus we are no longer under the law of moses, in other words moses law in the old testament was replaced by jesus's teachings in the new testament, read Galatians chp 3
 

DeletedUser

oisinallen said:
If this whole thing were merely a bet, then I'd be all in. I'd bet everything. I'd be a hardcore fundamentalist. But even someone like me, who'll bet on the worst odds in the world*, won't bet on something with a probability of zero.

*(Actually, the worst odds in the world are those things with a probability of zero. So I guess I'd bet on the second-worst odds in the world)
Click to expand...
Ah, but that's the crux here oisin. Soon as you bet on it, you are demonstrating a lack of faith. Even if it's all in, it's all lost. Following God because someone feels it's a better bet than not following god, invalidates the agenda because it places "self" before "God."
 

DeletedUser

Jim Sundance said:
Your wrong, with the coming of jesus we are no longer under the law of moses, in other words moses law in the old testament was replaced by jesus's teachings in the new testament, read Galatians chp 3
Click to expand...

Precise quote please, and pray do tell, which laws DO you follow?
 

DeletedUser

Jim Sundance said:
Your wrong, with the coming of jesus we are no longer under the law of moses, in other words moses law in the old testament was replaced by jesus's teachings in the new testament, read Galatians chp 3
Click to expand...


Why is it that Christian fundamentalists always quote the OT when they want to make points that demonstrate their supposed moral high-ground e.g. homosexuality being an abomination? Will they go and stone themselves when they commit adultery? Where do the women go and what do they do when they are unclean that month? .........:unsure::p
 

DeletedUser

I could swear there was a quote in the new testament that said something along the lines of "I came to affirm the law", meaning that yes, the old rules still apply.

Edit*

Found it.

Matthew 5:17:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Toko22 said:
Matthew 5:17:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Click to expand...

Ok kids, lets this quote be a lesson for taking things out of context ... if one countinues reading Jesus goes into details about certain laws and he is ammending the rules as clearly stated as he goes into details about Murder, anger, Adultry, Oaths, and so forth.

For example in Murder, he goes into more detail and saying that anger is also dangerous, though not as condeming as Murder it can lead to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top