You know, that’s probably the best summary I’ve seen yet as to what’s wrong with Pascal’s Wager! I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone else put it in those terms. It really shows off how Pascal’s Wager is little more than a con game:
CON ARTIST: If you give me a hundred dollars right now, I’ll give you a billion dollars later!
ME: Um … how will you guarantee that you’ll actually give me the money?
CON ARTIST: What’s the matter, don’t you trust me?
ME: Sorry, not interested.
CON ARTIST: But it’s a billion dollars! Can you really afford not to take the risk?
BTW, every time I invite people over to come and see the dragon in my home, they refuse, saying things like “it doesn’t exist because I refuse to look at it” - strange, but there you go
For one thing, I rather enjoy being able to live life according to my own moral beliefs instead of a book written thousands of years ago which is full of ambiguously worded statements and self-contradictions.
“the blind”
“the infernal”
and, in light of many arguments I have seen lately:
“IPUists”
“straw man artistes”
usage:
That blind brimstone biscuit’s nothing but a straw man artiste. The IPUist reminds me that I shouldn’t allow my time to be wasted by the infernal firewood.
Now, I have a deal for all people concerned with the very incorrect term “fundie”. I will immediately cease using that and many other terms for you, as soon as you begin calling yourself the very correct “anti-choice” when speaking of abortions.
Ya, sorry I went to the gutter. Was just trying to make a point. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure? You, WB, find one type of name calling acceptable, but another unfair. I do hope you call yourself fundamentalist, b/c your brand of religion is really political and has nothing to do with the teaching of Christ. And those are the folks the term ‘fundie’ is making fun of.
Moreso, I find your smugness interesting, and wonder why you keep posting things in GB when its clear you’re intention is Pit’ish.
Because in the pit everybody calls you vile and nasty names which I could really do back also. But that is not the Christian thing to do(I know I have done it in the past no reason to bring up past threads I admitted it) so I try to stay out of there because I am a human and get emotional and sometimes it is hard to resist striking back even though I know I shouldn’t. Heck even one of the diciples chopped off an ear off a guard when he was mad and Jesus was right there.
So here, I can debate with people that I disagree with in a more polite way.
couldn’t have said it better! i can only add that i have brains filling the hole where my soul should go. its tough relying on intellect and reason instead of faith…
Those of us who have chosen not to have children usually prefer the term “childfree,” as the “less” implies the loss of something. I myself am childfree, but Chanelless and catless. If somebody wants kids and doesn’t have them, for whatever reason, they would probably think of themselves as childless, since they will feel they are lacking something.
It’s not perjorative, just that childfree is cropping up more and more to differentiate those of us who made a decision to not have kids.
The above post has inspired me to describe myself as religousless. My preferred self-inflicted insult remains “dispicable degenerate disbeliever”. My motto is “Nothing IS Sacred”.
It is hard to prove that any of you Lets say I have a dragon in my home and I invite you over to see it. And when you get there you don’t see it, I tell you its invisible. You then propose a bunch of tests and for each test you come up with I have reason that it will not work, ie its incorpreal, doesn’t produce heat, ect.
I can’t prove the existence of a single person here…but I believe you do.
For what it’s worth, the post Kate_W quoted was originally from Felice, not jackmanii.
And no offense, Kate, but I think it’s silly to be sensitive about “childless.” Sounds like a big ol’ chip on the shoulder there. I was childless, and happy to be so.
