Re: Pascal's wager
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder)
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 22:14:51 +0200
Paul Ciszek <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <cfa8bce2-a907-4271-817b-a90fb911734e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michael Young <youngmster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:13 am, David Mabus <warsofathe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip horrifying rant]
Well Dave, I don't know whether you copy and pasted that thing, or
whether you wrote that yourself.
There's a very simple response to Pascal's Wager, and yes, it is a
very weak argument. I would paste this response here, but that's
conditional on whether you wrote what just finished assaulting my
eyes. If you're truly as fanatically zealous as that post, then we're
done here. If you're just copying that from somewhere to raise issues,
then I'll respond to Pascal's wager. Your call.
My modern response to Pascal's wager goes something like this:
According to contemporary American Fundamentalists, God asks too much
and offers too little.
My, he may be a Dutchman after all,
- Prev by Date: Re: Tony's Frame of Reference
- Next by Date: Re: Evolution is pro-Atheism
- Previous by thread: Re: Pascal's wager
- Next by thread: Re: Pascal's wager