(October 1, 2013 at 10:50 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 1, 2013 at 10:36 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: When an atheist invokes the possibility of God, the atheist has just contradicted their own belief.

I can only assume from your response that you did not read what I wrote, you completely ignored, or you didn't get my point.

Do you understand that pointing out an argument works equally for different god is not invoking the possibility of a god? Do you understand that being an atheist doesn't mean denying that god is a possibility?

You still are using a possible God to try to defeat Pascal's wager.

But the argument of multiple "believe or damned" claims does not help the atheists or the agnostic at all. The risk of infinite loss is the same and there is still no reward. So Pascal's wager still holds.

Pascal's wager would say look at all the claims and pick the right one. In reality, only one will not be self contradictory. Then that is the correct one.

(October 1, 2013 at 10:50 am)Faith No More Wrote: Do you understand that being an atheist doesn't mean denying that god is a possibility?

I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't understand the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground. So no, I doubt he understands anything about the atheist position either.

I see no mention in popeyespappy's response as to insinuate Satan's made-up religions. Sounds like someone's grasping at straws. Study history from a book other than the Bible and unless you're so deep in denial that no other options can penetrate your safety bubble, you'll realize the historical facts don't add up.

Cthulhu's Wager: you can bet your ass you don't want to be eaten last.

What if god exists but he only rewards those who don't believe in him with eternal life?

Quote:You still are using a possible God to try to defeat Pascal's wager.

But the argument of multiple "believe or damned" claims does not help the atheists or the agnostic at all. The risk of infinite loss is the same and there is still no reward. So Pascal's wager still holds.

Pascal's wager would say look at all the claims and pick the right one. In reality, only one will not be self contradictory. Then that is the correct one.

Or if he rewards us for using the brains that he gave us to see through the nonsense of religions

Quote:According to the Bible, if a person believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior, that person is saved forever

OF course, that requires that your bullshit jesus story be true in every particular. Do you have evidence that the story is true or are you just so fucking blind that you parrot back everything you've ever been told?

(October 1, 2013 at 10:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 1, 2013 at 10:50 am)Faith No More Wrote: I can only assume from your response that you did not read what I wrote, you completely ignored, or you didn't get my point.

Do you understand that pointing out an argument works equally for different god is not invoking the possibility of a god? Do you understand that being an atheist doesn't mean denying that god is a possibility?

You still are using a possible God to try to defeat Pascal's wager.

But the argument of multiple "believe or damned" claims does not help the atheists or the agnostic at all. The risk of infinite loss is the same and there is still no reward. So Pascal's wager still holds.

Pascal's wager would say look at all the claims and pick the right one. In reality, only one will not be self contradictory. Then that is the correct one.

You make the assumption that either a god or exists or it doesn't, like its a 50/50 shot. The truth is, the odds aren't even close to that. They're more like thousands to one. While much less important because of the previous, Pascal's Wager still fails in face of the many gods argument because religions tend to be mutually exclusive. Not that it matters, given the extremely long odds of any of them existing anyway.

In addition, if the above weren't already damning enough, Pascal's Wager is an appeal to fear and the unknown. You're not going to win any converts with it here, this whole thing is very old hat to us.

(October 1, 2013 at 10:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: But the argument of multiple "believe or damned" claims does not help the atheists or the agnostic at all. The risk of infinite loss is the same and there is still no reward. So Pascal's wager still holds.

Pascal's wager would say look at all the claims and pick the right one. In reality, only one will not be self contradictory. Then that is the correct one.

You're wrong, because the moment you untether yourself from reality by accepting the unfalsifiable nonsense of any religion, you open yourself up to the possibility that anything might be true; I mean, why not? What makes the shit I can make up any less believable than the shit some bronze age goat herders can make up?

The truth is, we all have the same odds: there's an infinity of possible afterlives, and no matter which you've decided must be true, you have an infinite amount that could prove you wrong.

Oh, and just saying: some concept being internally consistent and not contradictory, doesn't make it true. Let me show you: All dogs are green, I have a dog, therefore that dog is green. Nothing contradictory there, but yet the first premise is wrong.