Are you a God Fearing Christian?

[JD Barleycorn]

An old Russian story from the days of early communism.

A young party man shows up in a small village talking about the revolution, the people, and religion. The party is atheist and the people should be as well. An old woman edges closer and finally gets to ask a question, you say that God does not exist and I think that he does. What do I lose if I pray every day and try to keep God's law but find on my deathbed God does not exist? Why nothing mother, said the young man. The woman continues, what do you lose if you flout God's laws and disbelieve...and you find that God does exist after you die?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

An old Russian story from the days of early communism.

A young party man shows up in a small village talking about the revolution, the people, and religion. The party is atheist and the people should be as well. An old woman edges closer and finally gets to ask a question, you say that God does not exist and I think that he does. What do I lose if I pray every day and try to keep God's law but find on my deathbed God does not exist? Why nothing mother, said the young man. The woman continues, what do you lose if you flout God's laws and disbelieve...and you find that God does exist after you die?

Who would like to take this one?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

An old Russian story from the days of early communism.

A young party man shows up in a small village talking about the revolution, the people, and religion. The party is atheist and the people should be as well. An old woman edges closer and finally gets to ask a question, you say that God does not exist and I think that he does. What do I lose if I pray every day and try to keep God's law but find on my deathbed God does not exist? Why nothing mother, said the young man. The woman continues, what do you lose if you flout God's laws and disbelieve...and you find that God does exist after you die?

Originally Posted by shanm

Who would like to take this one?

Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

.

That argument has been refuted SO many times.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

However there are not 300 million people on eccie and you as under construction are the only ones who I have known to have used that quote. Add to the fact that you both are liberal - he deactivated his account than shortly after you create an account. You are both atheist/agnostic but what really convinced me that you two are one in the same as when you asked me about my avatar : you mentioned that no one wants to see my penis(your words paraphrased) and only one other person since I been an eccie has directly made that statement to me and that person was Under Construction. So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........
Oh by the way Stevie Wonder emailed me and he said that even he can see that you and under construction are the same person.

In fact the chances of you and Under Construction NOT being one in the same are about the same odds as a blind man walking into a dark room trying to find a black cat that isn't there.

Shouldn't you be on your knees?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

That argument has been refuted SO many times.

And I did not state anything to the contrary.

Indeed, my intention was merely to note that the "wager" JD Barleycorn described is nothing new under the sun; it's been known at least since Pascal's time.

[i'va biggen]

According to the latest Pew research poll Christians are leaving the faith in droves, and are about to be overtaken by Islam in numbers.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

That argument has been refuted SO many times.

Think so, undercunt?

"A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Shouldn't you be on your knees?

Why do you address others on this forum like your tranny boyfriends, undercunt?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And I did not state anything to the contrary.

Indeed, my intention was merely to note that the "wager" JD Barleycorn described is nothing new under the sun; it's been known at least since Pascal's time.

Sorry, that was just to add to your argument. Wasn't directed at you.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Think so, undercunt?

"A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/




Why do you address others on this forum like your tranny boyfriends, undercunt?

Yes, I think so. It presupposes the Christian God is the only one. You have no room for argument in this. It's been refuted for years.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Think so, undercunt?

"A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/




Why do you address others on this forum like your tranny boyfriends, undercunt?

You're supporting the argument dumbass. I guess copy paste doesn't enlighten you to the meaning of what you actually post.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by shanm

You're supporting the argument dumbass. I guess copy paste doesn't enlighten you to the meaning of what you actually post.

Pascal's wager is one of the most flimsy arguments there is for a diety. Not only that, but you have to get all the way from prime mover, to that prime mover being a 33 year old carpenter. A bridge MUCH too far.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, I think so. It presupposes the Christian God is the only one. You have no room for argument in this. It's been refuted for years.

You love to double down when you're wrong, undercunt. You obviously didn't even read the link or you would have noticed that your objection is but one of many dissected there:

“5. Objections to Pascal's Wager/Premise 1: The Decision Matrix/5. The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection.”

Much smarter minds than yours have looked at this, undercunt. If you weren't such a stubbornly ignorant, closed-minded, incurious, anti-intellectual fool you would concede there is PLENTY of room for argument.

Typical libtard. "No room for argument." "The science is settled." "It's been refuted." End of discussion.

That's so persuasive!

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You love to double down when you're wrong, undercunt. You obviously didn't even read the link or you would have noticed that your objection is but one of many dissected there:

“5. Objections to Pascal's Wager/Premise 1:The Decision Matrix/5. The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection.”

Much smarter minds than yours have looked at this, undercunt. If you weren't such a stubbornly ignorant, closed-minded, incurious, anti-intellectual fool you would concede there is PLENTY of room for argument.

Typical libtard. "No room for argument." "The science is settled." "It's been refuted." End of discussion.

That's so persuasive!

.

I think that the criticism for Pascal's wager applicable in JD's case is the fact that Pascal has no right to claim that a belief in god, based simply on his theory, will lead to a "divine reward" in every single religion. That's obviously going over your head.

In Christianity, is there any such concept that allows you to believe in GOD simply based on a chance that he might exist and therefore you'll go to Heaven? There isn't.

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit"