Isn't it Ironic and quite amusing?
I quoted a statement yesterday by Paschal Wagner; In short, God cannot be proven or disproved that he exists, so better to believe just in case. I get so many people commenting that God does NOT exists. They do not believe in God. I find that rather amusing as their statement in itself is acknowledging that God does exist,. Isn't this true? What do you think?
75 comments
It's true in the same sense that believing in God automatically makes you an atheist, yeah.
Incidentally, Pascal's Wager is one of the most common and enormously fallacious theistic arguments out there. I don't suggest throwing it around all willy-nilly, lest you look quite silly.
"I do not believe in god."
Now show me how that proves god exists....
"I do not believe in zebra-striped tax accountants from the planet venus."
Now show me how that proves that zebra-striped tax accountants from the planet venus exists....
Gah, I just want to shove a logic book down their throats sometimes.
And if the choice is between believing to be on the safe side or taking the risk and not believing and being wrong, I'll take the not believing any day because god seems like an ass to me. If s/he asked for respect instead of full-on worship, then I might be ok with the idea.
It's Pascal's Wager not Pascal Wagner, actually.
Richard Wagner was a German composer. Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician and philosopher.
Clear now?
Oops, sorry. Ctrak got there first.
Something I find rather funny is people who're dumb enough to fall for Pascal's Wager are basically committing a sin; they're taking god's name in vain and believing out of fear and self-preservation.
They're going to their own hell.
P.S.
Also, Carmella, don't make circular logic statements like that. Some people are prone to motion sickness.
C'mon, you don't even know who or what you're talking about. Why should were be impressed by what you "think?"
One cannot believe "just in case," because then the question would become, what should one believe "just in case?" In your God, Zeus, Odin, the IPU, the FSM? Plus, believing "just in case" isn't really belief anyway, it's pretending to believe to cover one's ass. Wouldn't your omniscient God see right through that?
Pascal Wagner? Does she really mean Pascals Wager? Because I googled the name and found nothing (except that she seems to be throwing this all over the boards.
1. Pascals Wager can be used to prove any got that has or will exist.
2. If you want to be taken seriously, at least try to get your facts straight.
And here I was trying to think up a good pen name...
And the reaction of someone like carmella to a cheerfully blasphemous and occasionally sexually explicit novel by "Paschal Wagner" would just be gravy.
The Wager isn't supposed to prove or disprove God. That was never the purpose. It was a humorous and offhand way to explain a 'rational' person's belief in God during a time when 'rational' people didn't believe.
I have no clue what the second part means, though.
So, you believe just in case? You're so selfish you cover your own ass at all costs?
Why not just be a decent human being and leave it at that?
Are you so scared of taking responsibility for yourself that you are incapable of doing so?
It takes no effort to not believe in god. It's not hard, or difficult.
Believe or don't. Plain and simple.
If it's such a struggle for you, maybe you should examine it.
Ah, the ol' Pascal's Wager.
A superficially good argument debunked and refuted by the Agnostic's Wager.
And no, when we claim God doesn't exist, we are saying that although the idea of a God exists, the God itself does not.
It's like pointers in C++:
Divine Being
Divine Being <---- "God" (Theist's perspective)
Since, however, you have never actually been able to dereference the so-called God pointer, we believe this instead:
null <----- "God" (Atheist's perspective)
That God is a null pointer to a being who does not exist, and although "God" clearly exists, and you believe in him, the being itself does not appear to be there.
I got as far as "Paschal Wagner" before I had to do a literal facepalm.
That's just... beautiful? There needs to be a better term for this sort of thing, this perfect and sublime encapsulation of FAIL that one cannot help but be awestruck of.
Nope.
I also don't believe in Quizusbuyrifdg.
Haven't heard of him? He's the one that says you'll be punished for every kind act. Just to be on the safe side, though, you should probably avoid kind acts.
Oh yeah, and BTW, Pascal concluded that the wager was false, that acting based on such a fear was a loss itself.
"I quoted a statement yesterday by Paschal Wagner"
Wow, epic fail within the 1st two sentences. Impressive.
Better to believe just in case hm? But what if the Hindu gods are the right ones? Or Allah? Or some other religion? You'd still end up in Hell or equivalent; you'll be lucky if one of the more tolerant religions are right and just have you reincarnated as something unpleasant.
I don't worry about this, because these violent religions that talk about hell are so easy to disprove through reading their own books. If there is a God, it hasn't seen the benefit of revealing itself to us and thus must feel it unimportant. If there is one, it will judge us based on what kind of a person we are, not on whether we called him Jesus, Allah, Bob, or Spaghetti.
And why not believe in Allah, Yaweh, Wodan, Zeus, Mythra, Vishnu, etc................just in case they exist. And what is so funny about some people not believing in God?, didn't you say five minutes ago that you can't prove that he exists?. Maybe they're just disbelieving just in case.
I don't believe carmella s has the intelligence of a wet dog turd.
This, of course, means that she DOES in fact have the intelligence of a wet dog turd.
Actually, Pascal's Wager makes sense since Jesus Christ is the only "well-know" deity that cares what we belive (Judaism have no afterlife-dogma, Islam say everyone go to Heaven after a period of cleansing in Hell, other religions are more interested in good acts). But it still that thing about REALLY beliving or just belive to get away from Hell.
Isn't it Ironic and quite amusing?
I quoted a statement yesterday by Paschal Wagner; In short, The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot be proven or disproved that he exists, so better to believe just in case. I get so many people commenting that The Invisible Pink Unicorn does NOT exists. They do not believe in The Invisible Pink Unicorn. I find that rather amusing as their statement in itself is acknowledging that The Invisible Pink Unicorn does exist,. Isn't this true? What do you think?
There, that's better. Just a tiny lil' change...
If they say that God doesn´t exist it means that they think he doesn´t exist. And regarding Pascal Wagner, come on, even Christians think that his argument is stupid. Believe in God just in case?, following that stupid premise, you should also believe in Allah, Yaweh, Vishnu, Thor..........just in case.
Let me begin. Just in case God, Khrisna, Allah or Thor exist, I´m going to say that they don´t exist, because it may mean that they exist. Pascal Wagner(sorry WAGER) would be a genius, believe me.
Wow, that's some GOOD logic.
Someone says they're wearing a black shirt, so obviously this is evidence that they're really wearing a white shirt!
@LOLKILLZ
It's acknowledging that god MIGHT exist, not that he (it?) does.
--------
Believing the windmills are witches would, of course, be insane. However, one must acknowledge that they might be witches.
"...better to believe..."??
You can decide what to say or what to do, but how can you "decide" what to believe? That's like sitting in silence for an hour, in which you're told to think about anything at all, except DON'T think about elephants...
Not that easy, is it?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.