5bd79d40
XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.talk.creationism
From: Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com
On 8/29/2010 3:00 AM, AllSeeing-I wrote:
> On Aug 28, 5:31 pm, Virgil wrote:
>> In article
>> <6d5d7e0f-b050-42dc-b4b7-ed17347d5...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AllSeeing-I wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 7:34 am, old man joe wrote:
>>>> " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
>>>> unrighteousness of men,
>>>> who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of
>>>> God is manifest in them;
>>>> for God hath shewed it unto them.
>>> [\]
>>
>>>> let the cursing begin as the Atheist's dodge this basic fact of life.
>>
>>> One way they dodge is by refusing pascals'e wager. I have always found
>>> it facinating that so many atheist reject the principal behind
>>> 'pasqual's wager'. Yet in their very own lives they will live by such
>>> phrases as "better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not
>>> have it", or "better to err on the side of caution".
>>
>>> But when it comes to something as potentially damaging as the loss of
>>> one's soul, they reject the principal of erring on the side of
>>> caution. They would rather not have it when they may need it.
>>
>>> Time is running out k00ks. Take pascal's wager. Err on the side of
>>> caution. Have saving-grace when you need it rather then ---to not have
>>> it when you do.
>>
>>> Wake up and smell the evolution in your coffee.
>>
>>> --
>>> The truth is this way says...
>>
>>> The All Seeing I
>>
>> Pascal's wager is profoundly anti-theist, since anyone who accepts
>> belief on the basis that it pays off better, would have damned himself
>> if it turned out there were that sort of a god and wasted his life
>> otherwise.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I love watching the atheist stammer and studier as they try to wiggle
> away from the simplicity of the wager.
Dear confused Madman,
I suspect it was a casual joke by Pascal.
He seemed to have a working brain, and his wager is so obviously stupid,
illogical, and so easily debunked, that I have a hard time imagining
Pascal being serious.
Should I debunk it again for you, or will you rest your case here?
>
> They will make up all sorts of reasons why the wager is not, exactly
> what it is.
I wonder who you talked to.
Maybe you discussed it with some particular stupid atheist?
One that could be outsmarted by you?
Try one that has basic skills in logic, and the validity of the wager
evaporates before you finished stating it.
It was debunked a long time ago because it is so easy to spot the mistake.
>
> It is what it is.
Yes, it is what it is: an invalid piece of reasoning.
Only people with no logic skills will buy it's conclusion.
>
> If you like the safe odds, or if believe in things like: "it is better
> to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it", --then
> pascal's wager will make sense to you.
Are you by any chance so immensely stupid you actually *really* think
Pascal's wager makes sense?
Please say no.
>
> If you believe one or the other but not both then you are lying to
> yourself.
That I rather pass on to the more talented: you.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
