am i doomed to hell?

[MisterBeale]

I always get a kick out of christians saying the jews got their own religion wrong

Jews argue with each other telling each other that they get it wrong, and Christians do that to each other.

Remember, Christ was a Jew. .. . .

. . . and the Pope has fun pretending to be one as well. . .

With the way he is dressed, do you think regular folks that don't know the difference in our religion that are from the east can tell the difference? If you are from China or Japan, like a teenager, and were asked, which one is the Catholic, which one is the Jew, etc.

Really?

 

[Toro]

As an investor and trader well-versed in risk and probability, I’m a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager.

God Bless Me.

Pascal's Wager is in effect calling your God an idiot that cant tell the difference.

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

 

[G.T.]

As an investor and trader well-versed in risk and probability, I’m a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager.

God Bless Me.

Pascal's Wager is in effect calling your God an idiot that cant tell the difference.

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I always get a kick out of christians saying the jews got their own religion wrong

You did steal a lot from Babylon. You did remain loyal to the Sabbath and Holy Days.

 

[MisterBeale]

No, back on page 1, Death Angel said God made Jesus without doing the dirty

God isn't flesh and blood. He can manipulate cells however. Why is that difficult for anti science tards?

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

Mary was abducted by aliens and impregnated by a genetically engineered hybrid of their and her offspring.

Now you know the truth.

 

[OldLady]

God isn't flesh and blood. He can manipulate cells however. Why is that difficult for anti science tards?

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

There's terms for male whores, old lady! Use your internet!

They are never used in these conversations. You know exactly what I mean.

 

[Toro]

As an investor and trader well-versed in risk and probability, I’m a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager.

God Bless Me.

Pascal's Wager is in effect calling your God an idiot that cant tell the difference.

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

 

[G.T.]

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

There's terms for male whores, old lady! Use your internet!

They are never used in these conversations. You know exactly what I mean.

I use them! I'm not being a jerk.

 

[TNHarley]

No, back on page 1, Death Angel said God made Jesus without doing the dirty

God isn't flesh and blood. He can manipulate cells however. Why is that difficult for anti science tards?

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

Whore. Is that better?

 

[G.T.]

Pascal's Wager is in effect calling your God an idiot that cant tell the difference.

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

Do you need to be walked through the philosophical refutations of pascal's wager, or did you do that already and find them insufficient because there's more than 3 fallacies it commits and so it doesn't fall under the guise of rationality. Rationality assumes reaching conclusions committing no formal fallacies.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Some of you know, i am a fairly close descendent of an ashkenazi jew. Only jew i know of in my family, so she slept out of her bloodline. Musta been a whore.. or she got raped by god like Mary..
anyways...
The ashkenazi tribe was the majority of rome when jesus died. So, i believe my ancestors killed jesus.
Since we all know the illogical mentality of the abrahamic god, am i doomed for the sins of my ancestors? We all know how god feels about that shit...
Should i be scared for my soul?

Yes. You're screwed just like me. He he

 

[OldLady]

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

Do you need to be walked through the philosophical refutations of pascal's wager, or did you do that already and find them insufficient because there's more than 3 fallacies it commits and so it doesn't fall under the guise of rationality. Rationality assumes reaching conclusions committing no formal fallacies.

What about "better being safe than sorry?"

 

[TNHarley]

Some of you know, i am a fairly close descendent of an ashkenazi jew. Only jew i know of in my family, so she slept out of her bloodline. Musta been a whore.. or she got raped by god like Mary..
anyways...
The ashkenazi tribe was the majority of rome when jesus died. So, i believe my ancestors killed jesus.
Since we all know the illogical mentality of the abrahamic god, am i doomed for the sins of my ancestors? We all know how god feels about that shit...
Should i be scared for my soul?

Yes. You're screwed just like me. He he

You and i will have a blast down there.
I bet demons got some fire head. Well tag team dem hoes.
Or as oldlady likes to call them, "whores"

 

[OldLady]

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

There's terms for male whores, old lady! Use your internet!

They are never used in these conversations. You know exactly what I mean.

I use them! I'm not being a jerk.

Didn't mean to turn the thread. Another time, place.

 

[Mindful]

God isn't flesh and blood. He can manipulate cells however. Why is that difficult for anti science tards?

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

Mary was abducted by aliens and impregnated by a genetically engineered hybrid of their and her offspring.

Now you know the truth.

God isn't flesh and blood. He can manipulate cells however. Why is that difficult for anti science tards?

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

Mary was abducted by aliens and impregnated by a genetically engineered hybrid of their and her offspring.

Now you know the truth.

Greek thinking was prevalent at that time. Gods mating with humans. The myths are full of it.

Could explain the half God half mortal baby Jesus.

 

[G.T.]

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

Do you need to be walked through the philosophical refutations of pascal's wager, or did you do that already and find them insufficient because there's more than 3 fallacies it commits and so it doesn't fall under the guise of rationality. Rationality assumes reaching conclusions committing no formal fallacies.

What about "better being safe than sorry?"

It fails to meet that criteria because it's a false dichotomy. The true dichotomy is not The Christian God's Heaven and hell vs. no God is real because there are dozens of other Religions that proclaim a hell for those who worship Religions other than theirs and if one of theirs is true you're in hell anyways. It's both a false dichotomy and commits the black and white fallacy in that regard but there are many other formal philosophical arguments which render it irrational besides those initial two.

 

[Mindful]

Some of you know, i am a fairly close descendent of an ashkenazi jew. Only jew i know of in my family, so she slept out of her bloodline. Musta been a whore.. or she got raped by god like Mary..
anyways...
The ashkenazi tribe was the majority of rome when jesus died. So, i believe my ancestors killed jesus.
Since we all know the illogical mentality of the abrahamic god, am i doomed for the sins of my ancestors? We all know how god feels about that shit...
Should i be scared for my soul?

Yes. You're screwed just like me. He he

How many are there of us in here? You, me, and Azog?

 

[MisterBeale]

Anti science tards

You're the ass hole that posits the mary rape theory
I'm the ass hole that posits the Mary was fuckin dudes behind her husband's back theory



im thinking we need a unified theory here -

In all seriousness, i figure she was just a hoe.
So we are on the same page.
Its just more fun to say she got raped

You can call her a ho when we come up with an equivalent slur for the men who are an equal partner in that activity.

I like Mary. If there was a hook into the religion, it would be her. No one ever declared her a "virgin" until the prudes got hold of the stories centuries later. They had to come up with something (supposedly) plausible to explain a dick never being in her vagina, and who is around to argue after all those people are in their graves?

Mary's first born was from the beginning burdened with trouble. First, a prophecy from the astrologers who predicted a King being born in the area due to the alignment of stars. Or maybe that story was hooked to Jesus after the fact, too. The slaughter of the innocents may have barely registered with Mary and Joseph at the time; they had already left town.

She watched him grow, no doubt proud but later pretty worried about it, as he became a philosophical child, heavy into the holy books, spent his time arguing minutiae with the priests and then started hanging with his cousin John, who was part of a splinter sect that wasn't well received in polite circles.

Jesus was a radical, and when they started treating him as a leader, the pols murdered him. She watched him suffer a horrible death and then she bathed and wrapped his body and put him in the tomb.

She was just a mother, a wife, a woman--not a ho. Her son was a charismatic, spiritual man who has changed the course of history, although I'd bet you anything she would have rather had him happy and alive with a passel of children and a goat farm.

Ho my ass. Go soak your head.

There's terms for male whores, old lady! Use your internet!

They are never used in these conversations. You know exactly what I mean.

That's b/c JR was banned.

 

[Toro]

I take a more pragmatic view. If God was OK with selling indulgences, the Crusades, and The Spanish Inquisition, then He is OK with accepting Christianity from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional standpoint, as most people do.

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

Do you need to be walked through the philosophical refutations of pascal's wager, or did you do that already and find them insufficient because there's more than 3 fallacies it commits and so it doesn't fall under the guise of rationality. Rationality assumes reaching conclusions committing no formal fallacies.

It’s not philosophy, it’s theology. It offers a rational way to accept God. How one accepts God does not matter as long as one does. God is indifferent to the decision-making process. What God cares about is if you do or do not, not how you get there.

Rationality can also be used to reject God. But in this case, reason is the process, not the end result.

 

[G.T.]

Pragmatism leads to "I dont know" regarding origins. Youre taking a dogmatic view in disguise as pragmatism and thinking that an omniscient God that professes the desire for true faith is too dumb to realize youre fake believing to hedge a bet.

I don’t think God is dumb. Rather, there are different ways to coming to the same conclusion. If He really wants us to believe in Him, I don’t think it matters if one comes to accept Him rationally or emotionally. If one accepts God and His teachings, what difference does it make if the decision is made rationally or emotionally?

Pascal's Wager isn't accepting his teaching, it's saying you don't know if you accept it but will lie with your mouth that you do based on hedging a bet to save your ass. It's irrational, and it's been debunked as a bad-faith argument in Philosophy books for 200+ years and is only ever brought up any more by whimsical folks. More power to you, but it's not pragmatic, it's disingenuous. More-so than a literal believer.

Blaise Pascal was a religious man, and spent the last years of his life mostly writing about religion. Pascal’s Wager argues that it is rational to accept God, not to be agnostic.

Nor is it bad faith. Christianity’s big carrot is immortal eternal life in paradise. Pascal mapped out a way for rationalists to accept God. Whether one accepts God rationally or because of feels makes no difference.

Do you need to be walked through the philosophical refutations of pascal's wager, or did you do that already and find them insufficient because there's more than 3 fallacies it commits and so it doesn't fall under the guise of rationality. Rationality assumes reaching conclusions committing no formal fallacies.

It’s not philosophy, it’s theology. It offers a rational way to accept God. How one accepts God does not matter as long as one does. God is indifferent to the decision-making process. What God cares about is if you do or do not, not how you get there.

Rationality can also be used to reject God. But in this case, reason is the process, not the end result.

Rationality is philosophy, and the wager is not rational it's fallacious.

Pascal's Wager implies your disposition is un-belief, and your "choice" to believe is based on the Wager. We don't choose our beliefs because we cannot control if we find something convincing or not - we do, or we don't - which is what makes the wager disingenuous, aside from being fallacious and pretty much regarded the most inept justification for belief behind the cosmological argument, the transcendental argument, the argument from morality and arguments from scripture itself.