Only Twenty?

[Doubting Thomas]

I am unconcerned with what is generally accepted. I don't worship anyone named Yahweh.

But you knew what the fuck I meant. Doesn't matter if you call your god Yahweh or not, other people do.

I also don't think Pascal's wager is a good proof for God's existence nor have I ever said so. Don't you people know how to use reason? You assume so much about what I clearly post, and add those assumption to my posts.

When you post a link to 20 "proofs" of God's existence which includes Pascal's Wager and you don't make any kind of comment on those arguments, then it looks like you're using Pascal's Wager as one of your arguments. What are we supposed to think? Maybe next time say something like "I agree with these except for Pascal's Wager."

Again, don't be a douche. If you post something like that without comment, of course we're going to think that those are the arguments you're making.

Regardless of whether or not you think that PW is a valid argument or not, you posted a link with 19 other lame, fallacious arguments which are no better than PW anyway. So even if you don't claim PW as a valid argument for God's existence, are we to assume that you agree with the other 19? If not, then why post that link at all if not for ridicule?