Stupak wonâ€™t last through the Senate. This is defense; the Catholic church has been at war against humanity and free-thought for centuries.
Good luck popping that balloon. Till then, Iâ€™ll be laughing and clapping with joy at each and every push further to the Left.
2009 November 15Elaine B permalink
The intelligent and commonsensical thing is to believe and act on that belief. You lose nothing and gain everything.
Conversely, if there is a God and you choose not to believe, you stand to lose everything.
2009 November 15
Correct me if Iâ€™m wrong but it appears youâ€™re articulating the sentiment of â€œPascalâ€™s Wager.â€
The problem with the wager is that belief in a theistic God is not a zero-sum game. The choice is not â€œDo I believe in God or donâ€™t I?â€ The choice is â€œIf I believe in God (or gods) which one do I believe in?â€ Because belief in one God requires the rejection of belief in untold numbers of possible other Gods â€” and this is even within the Christian tradition. If you believed in one version of the Christian God then youâ€™d be rejecting other versions of the Christian God. Across Christianity the character and rules of the god which different Christians embrace is so different that one cannot even really consider them the same god.
Understand my point here? Not only is the the wager easily taken apart, itâ€™s a logical argument to use to try and convince people to do something which is illogical. Faith is not a logical concept â€” and thatâ€™s not an insult to those of faith. Faith is contradictory and transcendent â€” our logical maps are inadequate to try and contain it.
David Horowitz also wrote about Pascal’s Wager in The End of Time.