Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Atheists are out to get us!' says Catholic League president, compares Penn & Teller to Nazis
Examiner.com ^ | Aug 31st, 2009 | Hugh Kramer

Posted on 09/01/2009 9:14:22 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 last
To: GL of Sector 2814
I replied because your version of Pascal’s Wager didn’t include the many ways that it has been refuted.

Yours didn't either, although I expect there was more to it on Wikipedia or wherever you went to get it.

But then it is not particularly difficult or complicated, is it? I can not go to the store by golfing. I can avoid the store by watching TV. I can even avoid the store by going to church. How I avoid the store doesn't change that I wasn't there.

The claims of scripture regarding God and Jesus Christ are accurate or they are not. You may choose not believe them. You may decide not to find out what they are. You may choose to believe in Krishna. It doesn’t matter, and that is what you seem to be trying to sweep aside with a detour from the last paragraph of my post. The logic is not refuted by adding deity variants and assuming equality of possibility. The refutation ignores the reality that the evidence in favor of scripture can be examined, even if you choose not to. Simon Greenleaf, thankfully, chose to examine the evidence.

When you stand before God I expect you will be free to explain the refutation of Pascal’s wager in your own defense. At that point you will have nothing to loose.

61 posted on 09/01/2009 4:53:00 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814
LOL - I do see now that it actually was wikipedia. I was intrigued by the many ways of refutation. Others would describe “many” using the word “four”.

Since I have already discussed the first two I may as well address the last two. Richard Dawkins’ argument is, frankly, both silly and stupid, in essence arguing that one can throw away one’s life for God to essentially have no “reward” at the end. His own contempt for christianity is obvious in his quote.

While other’s experience may be different, and could be discussed, my own experience has been that the times when I am living “for God” are the times that my life has been the most pleasurable.

The last (4th) of the “many” refutations is “the assumption that one can choose belief”. I don’t even need to discuss this one since you have made a conscious choice not to believe, and you know it.

62 posted on 09/01/2009 5:19:55 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson