Conquer Club

kentington wrote:I'd rather be pissed off than pissed on.

kentington wrote:I'd rather be pissed off than pissed on.

kentington wrote:I'd rather be pissed off than pissed on.

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Most retarded argument that is actually seriously used in religious debates.

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Most retarded argument that is actually seriously used in religious debates.

it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

^ good to see you're keeping on topic.

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

^ good to see you're keeping on topic.

...this thread had a topic?

kentington wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

^ good to see you're keeping on topic.

...this thread had a topic?

I think he is saying your post must have been the dumbest crap that came to mind. See title thread.

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Most retarded argument that is actually seriously used in religious debates.

it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

Army of GOD wrote:why is ignorance a bad thing? Isn't happiness the point of life?

john9blue wrote:

kentington wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

^ good to see you're keeping on topic.

...this thread had a topic?

I think he is saying your post must have been the dumbest crap that came to mind. See title thread.

oh, well in that case his lack of understanding of pascal's wager gives him a commanding lead.

john9blue wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:why is ignorance a bad thing? Isn't happiness the point of life?

it's not a bad thing unless it affects others.

this is why those who think religious people are ignorant often try to justify their hatred and superiority complexes by claiming that religion "poisons everything" or whatever. it "validates" their hatred.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:

kentington wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's funny how people don't understand that this isn't an argument for the existence of god, it's an argument for why you should believe in god.

^ good to see you're keeping on topic.

...this thread had a topic?

I think he is saying your post must have been the dumbest crap that came to mind. See title thread.

oh, well in that case his lack of understanding of pascal's wager gives him a commanding lead.

Funny, the earliest interaction I remember with you was debating Pascal's Wager, maybe like 3-4 years ago. You were still defending it and I was still saying it is an impressively bad argument.

Tell you what, start a thread on Pascal's wager if you want. I wager I can show it's idiotic in at least 3 independent ways.

Army of GOD wrote:why is ignorance a bad thing? Isn't happiness the point of life?