If someone is a cultist than Pascals wager does not apply. You only believe in the one right god <laugh> and believe so even though cultists over the world believe in the one right different god or worship the one right god in the one right way unlike those poor deluded bastards who get it wrong. Of course all those others got it wrong, you got it right just because.Adama wrote:Thanks, Winston. Now I understand what the fools talk about when they refer to Pascal's Wager. The arguments against Pascal's wager make me laugh, they are so stupid.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk ... Page13.htm
1. Basically equates Christianity with every other religion, which we know is not the case. We all know this intuitively without needing to have it explained, but I already explained it above. Christianity is salvation by faith alone in Christ. Every other religion is a works or faith + works salvation, which is self-righteousness and insufficient in God's sight.
2. This one just says they've declared that God can't exist. That's what that means. Because they're idiots, they just throw this out there. It just means they can't believe already.
3. In this one in the last sentence, whoever wrote this even knows that God knows the hearts of men. But somehow he still refuses to accept that all he needs to be saved is a little faith in Jesus in his heart. There he is admitting that he willfully disbelieves God. He even says God knows the difference between going through the motions and real faith, but then he says it isn't intentional if someone doesn't believe. Well since you know that salvation is by having faith in your heart and not by works of the law, why not just have faith in Jesus without works of the law? Because that person can't or doesn't want to believe.
Pascal's Wager is only sufficient for reprobates to subscribe to. It's just their "rational" and "scientific method" way of fooling themselves into thinking they don't have to accept Christ. They condemn themselves through willfully ignoring the Holy Commandment that they should believe and be saved.
1:
For a non believer the idea that 1: Christianity is the one actual god is far from certain. If they believed as such they would be believers.
Also Pascal was a Catholic. Many fundies think they got it wrong and are all going to hell, I believe you had some harsh words to say on those people also.
No better evidence that point 1 is true and not stupid is that the person who came up with Pascals Wager and followed it got it wrong according to some.
2: Actually point two says that the idea of a Christian god who tosses people in hell for not believing is not likely.
The bible is filled with contradictions and error, it just can't be the work of, or inspired by a creator god unless it's purpose was to mislead.
The bible is filled with too many stories of god being a complete evil dick both on a personal, national and global scale, yet the claim that he is just and loving. One of these things can't be true.
It is in theory possible but very unlikely that someone who can create the universe and knows everything and has unlimited power would get so butt hurt and having someone not see the evidence of his existence that he would respond with an eternity of torture. This is beyond the level of a kid who takes his toys and goes home, the husband who beats his wife or children half to death for the slightest error. It just isn't on and anyone who thinks this is reasonable really needs psychiatric help.
3"
This is a mixture of you not knowing how to read and your staggering ignorance of non cultists.
He isn't saying god knows the heart of men. He said any real God would obviously see straight through that. Much like any real Santa would know who is naughty and who is nice doesn't not require the belief in nor the existence of Santa to be a true or valid or even reasonable statement. If a brony says any real unicorn would believe friendship is magic most people would understand that the brony saying that doesn't actually believe in unicorns, it's a hypothetical. The whole premise of the writers and the site is that god doesn't exist. It is really pathetic reaching for you to grab onto point three as evidence that we are actually do believe and just reject your invisible friend. If is very clear to anyone who doesn't have his head completely up his ass like a cultist that it is a hypothetical statement.
IF you went through the motions and IF there is a god, you would not fool him.
Also you disagree with point 1 while claiming that you have to get it right or you are going to hell which is basically point 1. That so many people get it wrong in your eyes proves point 1.
I am sure you would agree that going through the motions is not enough to be saved so you obviously believe in point three.
So you have just called to logical points that YOU agree with stupid. Bravo <sarcastic clapping>
Again you are such a cultist that it seems to concept of If when applied to your imaginary friend is beyond your limited mind to comprehend.
You know since you go about assuming anyone who doesn't believe in your imaginary friend hates your imaginary friend, rejects him and is a reprobate. I think every time you mention your invisible friend I will call you a child f***er. I mean those priests sure love f***ing little kids and your imaginary friend sure loves killing babies.
You child f***er.
Also all those counter arguments to Pascals Wager only applies to Pascal's Wager nothing more. It is not meant to debunk your imaginary friend, unicorns or Santa. so your ending points are moot in regard to what you are objecting to. Most religious people especially the fundies actually believe that Pascals Wager isn't true. You must pick the right imaginary friend, worship him in the correct way and do it for real.