Pascal's Wager goes like this.
If the Christian God doesn't exist, whether or not you believe you'll rot in the ground when you die. If the Christian God does exist, the believers will get eternal bliss and the nonbelievers get damnation. Wouldn't it be better to believe than to take that chance?

This argument is inherently flawed. It assumes that there are only two things can be true. Either A. The Christian God exists or B. The universe is a cold and godless place and our lives are meaningless.
There are other options, folks. Off the top of my head, I can name at least five or six completely distinct religions that have nothing to do with God, and that's just with two seconds of thought. What about them? They offer their own views of the afterlife which must be taken into consideration. What about the option that every human who ever lived has been wrong and the truth is yet unknown?

These things are rarely considered by those who use the Wager.

Conclusion: Pascal's Wager is an ineffective argument due to this glaring flaw.

-------
Robbie

This argument basically involves extolling the horrors of hell in an effort to scare someone in Christianity. It isn't going to work, folks. It just isn't. The kind of person who is willing to take your word on the exact nature of the afterlife without so much as a whiff of unholy brimstone is the kind of person who gets easily distraced by tin foil. By the time you get them to commit to conversion, they'll be three steps down the path towards Wicca.

Not only that, but for the people who this argument doesn't work on (which comprise the vast majority of people) all that is being accomplished is the breeding of resentment towards your religion. Now, while I'm sure you think it is good just to tell people about Jesus, I'm fairly sure you aren't doing his will by pissing everyone off and thus driving them further into the steely claws of Satan.

Conclusion: Worse than ineffective, argument 2 is actually counterproductive and people come away from it more angry at Christianity that they were prior to the incident.

-------
Robbie

This may or may not include other denominations of Christianity, depending on the speaker. Therefore, people who are of a religion which is not Christianity are in the thrall of Satan. Here's the interesting thing about this assertion. The one who gives this argument is always Christian, and Judaism is not Christianity. Thus, assuming the validity of this argument, Judaism is of the Devil.

Jesus, and all of the original Christians, were Jews. Jesus was born a Jew, Jesus engaged in Jewish customs, and therefore the person asserting the above argument as fact is calling Jesus tainted by the hand of the devil, not to mention the apostles as well.

I doubt this is intentional, as such a person likely sees Judaism as Christianity: The Prequel, so this is just to point out that you are being an idiot even by your own beliefs when you say this.

Here's two things to keep in mind.
A. If Satan is farsighted enough to muck up Christianity by founding false religions before Christianity even exists, why the hell can't he avoid losing the Apocalypse? A ties into B.
B. If you think that all other religions were formulated by Satan, who is to say that Christianity is not the grandest ruse of them all? After all, if I were Satan the best thing in my book would be to have a false religion a billion-strong claiming to adhere to the ways of my enemy and making a total mess of it because their fundamental beliefs were satanic in origin and fundamentally flawed.

Conclusion: Don't even try it. It is just opening a whole new can of worms. Evil, goat-footed, horned worms.

-------
Robbie

This has become popular since the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The logic goes that since some Muslims did bad things, all Muslims must be bad. This isn't entirely based on those attacks, of course. Those nasty middle eastern Muslims are attacking those poor innocent Jews and the whole place is a clusterfuck of violence and extremism.

Guess what Christians? There but for the grace of God go ye. Okay, maybe that's a bad phrase to use because you'll take it literally. The kind of Christian who says these things is no different from the extremist wacko Muslim in that they both take bias and misinformation and mix it in a pot called religious nutjobbery to produce baseless hatred. Congratulations.

Israel isn't the innocent lamb you make it out to be, Muslims are people just like you, and turn the other motherfucking cheek for once.

Conclusion: Total and complete BS. If someone tries citing that false Koran passage as a means of refuting this, I will repeat that it is a false passage (which, by the way, I can prove because there's a Koran on one of my bookshelves) and then I will proceed to come to your house and paint your dog a funny color.

-------
Robbie

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in any gods or spiritual whatsahooses (plural of whatsahoosis).

Conclusion: You don't know what you're talking about if you say this, all subsequent and prior arguments you made can be dismissed. By the way, remember: I before E except after C and in the word 'atheist'.

-------
Robbie

This is also a fairly ridiculous thing to say. This is often said because the person writing the post seems to think that the only system of belief and morality is their own, and nobody else is capable of having one. This is nonsense, of course. Everyone has some sense of right and wrong except complete sociopaths. Since most non-Christians don't skewer puppies for the sheer unadulterated hell of it, I'm going to assume they aren't all sociopaths. That's right, even the atheists.

As for a belief system... in addition to God, I believe in gravity, chicken and dumplings being delicious, photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide, and a whole host of other things. People can have a sense of right and wrong without a God. "Do unto others" is not exclusive to Christians. Anyone with some degree of empathy can say, "I don't like this done to me, so I won't do it to you."

Conclusion: Total bullshit.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:16 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Stop there. Don't go past the third word there. Atheists and people of religions with no tied to Judaism are not going to accept any part of the bible as fact. Deal with it. Want to know why?
Why should they accept the Bible as true? Because it is true, right?
How do they know it is true? Because you say so? Because it is? Because it says in the bible that the bible is true?

They are all batshit insane reasons. I could pick up the Koran and do the same thing to you. Would you believe it? If you would, keep preaching until I convert you to Islam. If you wouldn't, shaddup.

Conclusion: Shaddup.

-------
Robbie

This sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? Well, except for the part where we all deserve eternal damnation because some ass ate an apple six thousand years ago. The only time this is a good thing to say is following the question "I am a sinner, who can redeem me?" If you just walk up to people and say that, they're going to give you a blank look and carry on. If you say it online, you'll likely be torn apart. See #7. You have no proof. You're doing the religious equivalent of poking someone in the arm and saying, "C'mooooon. Beliiiiieve. C'moooooon." Generally, it doesn't work.

Conclusion: As effective as a sponge at a gunfight.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:44 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Aww. The touchy feely side of conversion attempts. Far more useful than the full "God loves you. So love back or He'll make you pay!" That's not really giving the image of an unconditionally loving father. For an idea of what you are making God look like, watch the stalker movie Swimfan. Which I have never seen, but I am assuming to be relevant.

Conclusion: I'm not saying don't use this, because as Christian arguments go this (by itself) is a fairly nonoffensive one. I just suggest that you be ready to explain why an all-loving God would have need for a place of eternal torture, because that is going to come up pretty damn quick. Also, the "Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole" thing is really funny.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:43 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Your life doing a 180 when you converted is not proof of a miracle. It is proof of you being capable of turning your own life around when you have a system of morals to fanatically adhere to. The world seems brighter because there is now apparently a meaning to it all, and the shadows seem less shadowy. Bad things that happen, why still bad of course, are not as horrible as they once were because there is a God, there is a plan, and the spaceship is coming! (Strike that very last part. I stole those final thirteen words from the comedy act of Maria Bamford when she talked about cults. I didn't have the heart to change it.)

Conclusion: Unless everyone you know wins the lottery the day after you convert, I'm having a hard time seeing something miraculous going on. "I stopped drinking" is not the kind of thing people usually envision when somebody says miracle. Mostly because atheists are capable of that as well.

-------
Robbie

Oh, goody. Does He now? This ties into numbers nine and twelve, by the way. First of all, how can an all-loving God hate? Doesn't the capacity for hate kind of defeat the purpose of saying "all loving"? Shouldn't you say somewhat loving, or kinda liking? Secondly, does God hate brunettes? Spaniards? Does he hate other people who are born in a certain way and cannot change what they fundamentally are?

I hate to be the neuroscience guy that comes to tell you this but homosexuality... well, just read number twelve would you?

Conclusion: Nonsensical gibberish. Read twelve. Do it now, or I'll be quite cross.

-------
Robbie

No, it isn't. Homosexuality is a matter of brain chemistry that is predetermined by genetics. Homosexuality is not a sin, because homosexuality is a state of being, not an action. Sin requires that you do something. For example, being a gay person is not any more inherently sinful than being a person. However, by your own religion, rubbing penises together like firestarters is the no-no. Actually, if someone wants to post that interpretation of the original law that only labels it as sinful if you are taking and not giving (because you are taking a woman's role) then that would be ubersweet. Uber. Homosexuality occurs in... what was it, now... 11 animal species at least? Since last I checked humans have free will and swans don't, that means homosexuality is not a choice, and since it happens in nature it is natural. Oh, it can be natural and bad, but don't call it unnatural either.

Conclusion: Sorry, no dice.

-------
Robbie

How can God? Honestly, at least we can prove the universe exists. If you honestly want an answer from this question more thorough than what you'll get on this board, buy a damn book. Have tea with Hawkings or something. Lay on Einstein's grave and hope something seeps in via osmosis. However, this might be seen as avoiding the question. Your argument is that God, by His nature, does not need and does not have a beginning. Great. That's what people are saying about the Universe.

Conclusion: Hated to burst your bubble, but eh...

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:43 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

I agree totally. Too bad nobody believes that human beings evolved from monkeys. It is believed that humans and APES (not monkeys, those are two distinct classifications) share a common ancestor. It looks something like this:
                           ____ Humans
Common Ancestor--|
                           ____ Apes
(If that isn't aligned properly... like, fix it or something.)

See how humans didn't come from apes? Neat, huh? Granted, that is extremely oversimplified, but I'm writing this to a target audience that is extremely oversimple.

Conclusion: That is like saying we evolved from a sloth. Shut up.

-------
Robbie