Jack Chick is the man!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may consider it folly, and I respect your decision to reject the message. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not at least attempt to impress upon others the message that God has impressed upon man. Specifically, He is not looking for those who are able to approximate a rigid religiosity, some stiff supposed holy posture that reflects an a ...[text shortened]... ne else on your behalf lands you in heaven. Those odds, in my thinking, are impossible to beat.

Pascal's Wager still? Haven't you guys come up with a better flimflam after 300 years?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pascal's Wager still? Haven't you guys come up with a better flimflam after 300 years?

The concept is impossible to refute. Applied as intended, regardless of veracity of the subject, it's a win-win proposition.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The concept is impossible to refute. Applied as intended, regardless of veracity of the subject, it's a win-win proposition.

Pascal's Wager is easily refutable. Just postulate a god exactly the opposite of the one you first considered. This second possible god would inflict exactly the opposite consequences for any action or belief that the first would. The two cancel out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Those odds, in my thinking, are impossible to beat.

Well, that is...until you put some real, critical thought into it. As no1 pointed out, this is simply Pascal's Wager...I'm sure you have read the critiques of this particular philospohical argument. In case you haven't, here are some links you might consider reading:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html (Paul Tobin)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html (Richard Carrier)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The concept is impossible to refute. Applied as intended, regardless of veracity of the subject, it's a win-win proposition.

My, my...it seems even Calvin & Hobbes have figured out a downside to the impossible-to-refute concept:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Pascal's Wager is easily refutable. Just postulate a god exactly the opposite of the one you first considered. This second possible god would inflict exactly the opposite consequences for any action or belief that the first would. The two cancel out.

Thus my disclaimer, "applied as intended."

Originally posted by David C
My, my...it seems even Calvin & Hobbes have figured out a downside to the impossible-to-refute concept:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif

And the downside is what, exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thus my disclaimer, "applied as intended."

I think the point might be, the intended application is untenable.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And the downside is what, exactly?

Your God may not like self-serving toadies.

Originally posted by David C
Your God may not like self-serving toadies.

Really? Then why would He appeal to our most base desires?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? Then why would He appeal to our most base desires?

Convenience?

Originally posted by David C
Convenience?

I guess the joke's on the ones who don't get it, then.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I guess the joke's on the ones who don't get it, then.

Don't worry...they're laughing with you, not at you.

Originally posted by David C
Don't worry...they're laughing with you, not at you.

Exactly. You're the one of the cool kids. I get it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Exactly. You're the one of the cool kids. I get it.

If it helps to soothe your existential angst, I'm happy to bear whatever label you wish to cast upon me. I also get it...you can't abide the thought that the principles of Pascal's Wager don't stand up to any serious scrutiny.