(May 29, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: I'm not someone prone to taking unusual risks ;but for me, deciding to believe and accept theistic teachings, which may have beneficial eternal consequences for the acceptee; or to deny these teachings ,which may only offer some vain ,arbitrary and short lived pleasures ,but could lead to an eternity of pain,and misery, is an easy decision to make.
I'm not a gambler ,but the cost benefit ratio is on the side of the believer
who risks nothing but gives up disease ,alcoholism, crime and early death
and could pssibly gain eternal life in a state of bliss.
If ,you're wrong ,all you gain is some guilty pleasures and lose an eternity.
If I'm right I give up vice and crime and perversions but gain an eternity .
its a no brainer ,except for those with no brains
I just finished reading the RULES ..and this could get me banned.. so here's your big chance to get me dumped. start complaining now ..
Pascal's Wager fails on every level. It was flawed in the 17th century, no less flawed in the 21st.
You are risking just as much as we are.
You are ignoring every other god and all their various hells.
What if the one true god actually created all the various religions as a test for gullibility? And he rewards those of us who are skeptical enough to not accept any of them based on insufficient evidence, and punishes those of you who believe one of them based on faith?
I know if I were a god, I wouldn't want to spend eternity with a bunch of gullible, ass kissing sycophants. I'd want to spend it with skeptical, rational thinkers.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
