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

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Does the above mean that you were using "irony" or Pascal was?

I was using irony. The claims a religion makes about heaven or hell are totally irrelevant to whether it should be believed or not. Pascal's Wager is one of the most foolish arguments ever presented.

60 posted on 11/24/2001 6:31:05 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Physicist
I was using irony. The claims a religion makes about heaven or hell are totally irrelevant to whether it should be believed or not. Pascal's Wager is one of the most foolish arguments ever presented.

Ahhhhh, then I do apologise for thinking it was you who was "foolish"... the title goes to Pascal, by all means.

64 posted on 11/24/2001 6:35:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Physicist
Physicist, let me say that a belief in any religious system or religion has to require "faith" to those claims of the premises. So, today if you have martyrs for a paticular religion they are basing they're belief on faith, but the apostles were claiming to have witnessed actual events taking place and would not have martyred themselves unless those things had actually taken place.
70 posted on 11/24/2001 6:43:37 AM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Physicist; Apple Pan Dowdy
APD: Does the above mean that you were using "irony" or Pascal was?

Physicist:
I was using irony. The claims a religion makes about heaven or hell are totally irrelevant to whether it should be believed or not. Pascal's Wager is one of the most foolish arguments ever presented.

You are both ignorant about this.

Pascal's Wager is NOT repeat NOT NOT NOT an argument intended to intellectually convince. Pascal, who invented the modern theory of probability, was much too logical for that!

Pascal's Wager is aimed ONLY at people who have ALREADY intellectually accepted belief in God from OTHER arguments, but are feeling EMOTIONAL reservations and can't make the "leap of faith" even though they intellectually accept the arguments for Christianity.

This will make no sense to those non-Christians who cannot imagine that there are actually real intellectual non-emotional arguments for Christianity, but the more intelligent kind of non-Christian is capable of appreciating that there ARE reasonable intellectual arguments for Christianity and that the great thinkers who were Christian were not simply deluded fools!

89 posted on 11/24/2001 6:55:56 AM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

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