I am not going into this shit (recent events).  

hay even a dumb chick can be a provider but dumb guys are up a creek.

I tend to view dumb people as all being pretty much alike. I recognize this as a flaw, but it is a difficult one to overcome. For instance, I assume dumb people, real morons, probably all buy into the same political propaganda. And I see this more as a defining characteristic of stupidity than an accompanying characteristic. If they didn't buy the lie, they would be smarter, but they're too dumb to realize that. The same with god-believers, climate-change deniers, flat-earthers and other subscribers to various Ptolemaic systems. I tend to paint them all with the same brush and evaluate their abilities as equally limited. Distinguishing one moron from another seems fruitless. Dismissing one idiot to a greater or lesser degree than another requires very time-intensive laborious effort. So, I admit, seeing all dumbfucks as being the same is probably incorrect, but most reasonable people can see how it happens.

Talking that smack

when I first read your post I thought you called him "incontinent" and thought to myself WTF???!!!

Yes, definitely time for more coffee.

As for RTucky, MtDew could learn a LOT from him on how to properly troll these boards. It's funny, sometimes there are huge grains of truth in the troll posts that he posts. Whereas NEG/!_!/MtDew just sort of drools all over himself.

WB is proving himself not to be smart, but simply rigid and narrow minded.

Let's take religion just for a moment, a position where he and I mainly agree. I think ALL religion is equally ridiculous, but I have had to reluctantly concede that not all religious people are STUPID, even though I personally believe that the belief in an imaginary man in the sky, or whatever other ridiculous bullshit that they believe in is way past dumb. The problem is, some people with stupid beliefs are actually far from stupid, which is where WB's stupid train of logic runs off the track.

-- Modified on 12/6/2014 10:04:08 AM

only slightly more intellectually sophisticated explanations.  

You missed the point. The sky isn't falling.

have always had the truly elite intellectuals on their side. I am not saying that makes religion or right-wing politics correct... Just that saying Fascists, Catholics or Hindu's or whatevs are dumb by definition is well.... dumb.  

If you follow the moral path and it turns out that there is no God, your only loss is a finite amount of time. But, if you live a wicked life and your gamble that there is no Judgment Day is wrong, you are eternally screwed.

are/were totally impractical. The guy was an open and devout Jansenist even though they were a persecuted minority. He had many charismatic experiences with the divine even keeping evidence of his initial experience with him at all times... Plus, the guy was an all time great mathematician and that and practicality are mutually exclusive.  

If the chances of an event happening are low enough, even the smallest premium paid is too much.

Would you pay even a dollar a year to insure yourself against hurricane damage in Minnesota?

Altering my behavior one iota on the infinitesimal  chance that any of the religious pukes over the centuries actually has the "true path" seems like a complete waste of my time. Not only would I have to believe in the concept of heaven and hell to begin with, but then I would have to figure out which one out of all the competing, not to mention mutually exclusive, of the sects actually got it right.

Sorry, but I can think of a lot better ways to waste my time. Like posting dumb shit on a fuckboard for one. lol

You have to choose between hundreds, maybe even thousands of competing insurers, each claiming that ONLY their policy will get you into heaven and that buying a policy from one of their competitors will only insure that you DO NOT get into heaven, even if your premium is paid in full. lmao

So pray tell, how do you choose which policy to buy, and remember attempting to increase the odds by buying multiple policies voids every of them and ensures that you will never see the heaven that you aspire to?

Tricky business this heaven stuff, isn't it. Just like with all insurance, you really need to read the fine print. lol

...you do seem like someone who would do a lot of painting of others with that brush of yours.
You seem to think you are very smart.  Good for you.
But I'll take a "big dick" thread over this kind of post any day.

It's purely a crap shoot, there is no "maximum coverage", at best you get to pick one insurer, and since it's all "faith based" there is no rational way to pick which insurer is the only "right" one, hence there is no way to get "maximum coverage",

This is why I maintain that practicing religion as a "pragmatic" way to offset your chances of going to hell is hardly pragmatic at all, but rather a complete waste of time and energy. You are simply playing a lottery with astronomical odds and no real way to increase those odds.

It's no wonder he came to the wrong conclusion. As many people much smarter than me have observed repeatedly.

I analyze odds for a living, this one is a no brainer. I will enjoy this life to the fullest, because the odds say "it's the only one I am likely to every have" lol

Your point is taken, but you did make the mistake of putting this into the context of getting into heaven, which is not simply a concept of God, but of religion, and there is a huge difference between the two.

If you will agree to amend your earlier statement about "loss of heaven" I will stipulate that the Wager holds true if we are simply base it on the existence of "A" God, not any of the ones made up by the various religions. Otherwise I hold to my original position that practicing religion in an attempt to avoid hell and get into heaven is a fools bet, and one where I will take all the action I can get on the "against" side. lol

and I will pray to the football gods for Alabama to cover. lol

Besides, more than likely Admin is going to step in and close this branch for us.

I'd be more than happy to pick this up later on the P&R board, if of course we can get the trolls to stay off of the thread so they won't drown out our civil conversation with their stupid comments.

The question presented is "Does God/Deus/Theos exist?" It is not, is God a Catholic or a Protestant or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu... That is not addressed by The Wager. All it says is: when presented with the issue of a choice between Theism or Atheism the smart money bets Theism for many reasons. That's all. In that, it is similar to Aquinas' Proofs of God. The proofs by their own terms only seek to prove a "narrow slice" of his nature...  

-- Modified on 12/6/2014 3:37:00 PM

If at some point in your life, you GaG, come to a point where you are confronted with the precise question: Does God exist or not? Then Pascal argues that the smart money bets on God's existence.  

For The Wager to be applicable, one would have to have already arrived at the conclusion that all other options are incorrect and that only the binary choice of theism vs atheism is left. At that point, heaven and the loss of it is crucial to Pascal's reasoning.  

At the outset of that little post I admitted that this was a FLAW of my perception on life. You could read that as my working on overcoming it. So you claim to have a really big dick? I'll ask around and find out maybe, or you can tell us all now.

The odds of someone successfully proving a negative are very slim. If someone ever wagered that bet with me, I'd be all in