I converted after looking into the odds of humanity existing, and drawing correlations between the big bang theory and the biblical story of creation. Among hundreds of other correlations between scientific fact and biblical teachings. I think science is not anti-christian, quite the opposite.

Hello!

Intelligent design is a good thing to look into.

Gwyn, you are aware that Pascal's Wager has been debunked, correct?

Doctor Anon - Which creation story are you talking about?

its been DEBUNKED xdxdxd

🤣

Pray tell who came back from the dead and told us idiots?

It's simple rationality. You would have to apply it to all faiths, not just one. So there is the Pascal's Wager of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, etc... Each one, by not believing in them, you are taking a risk. Pascal's Wager only applies to believing in some sort of afterlife-reward versus not, but the problem arises when you take into account that there are thousands of different possible ones to believe in, and most are quite exclusionary for receiving the ultimate prize.

This is without taking into account the fact that if one lives their life according to a religious code that prevents them from fully experiencing their short time on earth and they are wrong, then they have squandered precious years of a finite existence.

Therefore, Pascal's Wager, even from a superficial analysis, is quite flawed.

^^

No that just means it applies to other faiths as well as atheism. What kind of pseudointellectual garbage is this?

Using debunked is still not appropriate terminology 💁🏻‍♀️

You could have said "I'm full of shit" in fewer words.

I was using it in the manner of 'demonstrate the hollowness of', which is correct.

Which is fine if you believe in the void

It's not hallow though.

Boils down to subjective opinion.

☝️

Even if it could only apply to atheism you are still taking less of a chance.

But it is an irrational subjective opinion upon which to build your faith.

Again, pseudointellectual garbage.

Pascels wager was never "debunked", it's a fair critizism of that type of thinking. what's wrong with it

all it points out is "what if you're wrong you could go to hell" is an unsound argument for being religous

I don't think anybody builds their faith on "well if I'm wrong I'm going to Hell".

I just told you, it applies to all faiths, but yes, even I suppose to a lack thereof, but therein lies the issue, if you can apply Pascal's Wager to all beliefs regarding the afterlife, its usefulness becomes moot.

not saying anyone does, but some people use that argument on athiests

it's been used on me

It isn't meant to be useful in the first place.

Nobody bases faith on it.

It is just the hypothetical question

Then why did she give it as a reason?

a lot of people do mean for it to, I'm not saying you do

but I've experienced it

No one care in the end

Ask her if she builds her faith on it.

It's a catch-22, if that is your sole reason for being faithful then it isn't real faith.

Pathetic mental gymnastics.

I quite literally asked why those who believed did... and that was her answer... so now you're calling her a... liar?

Read above.

People don't use pascals wager for their own faith, they use it to try to tell atheists that they are dumb

Are you illiterate as well as a pseudointellectual now?