jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (131 posts)

Pascal's wager ...

  1. Doc Young profile image81
    Doc Youngposted 2 years ago

    What are your thoughts on it?

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Laughable.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      While his logic is at least semi-correct, his assumptions are unfounded, unproven and without basis in reality.  The conclusion is thus false as well (GIGO).

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It's a wager. One would have to wager that a king would flop next to make a full house and actually believe it to be so. Would one then bet the house because he is so certain a king will flop next? How can one wager a king will flop and then believe it's so without doubt?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But the wager is a penny against a lifetime supply of unlimited money.  I'd bet, too, although the belief part can't happen.

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's not just a penny,  though.   It's a lifetime of worship,  praise,  proselytizing and living by a rigid set of ancient moral rules complete with judging everyone else.   It's guilt and inadequacy and shame.   It's being told (at least in Christianity) that you're unworthy of love or forgiveness without torture and blood sacrifice,  and it's constant fear that you've forgotten to ask forgiveness for something and that you'll be sent to hell anyway.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              All the while knowing it's just a wager. Convincing yourself a king will flop without ever seeing the king.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                True - if the "penny" is believing something that is inherently unbelievable most of us cannot pay the price of the wager.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Penny is relative - relative to the prize which is eternity of bliss.  Or so goes the claim - personally I think that an eternity of life would be the worst punishment possible, whether bliss or punishment makes little difference.

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                True,  but if you bet the penny and you're wrong you will have wasted a penny and a lifetime preparing for an afterlife that doesn't exist as a best case scenario.   At worst,  you will have wasted everything to suffer in a different hell than the one you believed in.

                1. Doc Young profile image81
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... don't wanna stop the dialogue ... just need a little help with this comment ... do i understand you to say regarding the last that ... "if" there is a God one still is headed for hell ... or are you saying that God would be dissatisfied as He was the winning jackpot of a wager rather than the reward of faith ... and therefore reward the winner according to His stated requirements ... in short ... believe or perish ...

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm saying that there's no way to tell WHICH god.  So if you bet on the wrong one, then you're no better off than the non-believers - possibly even worse, since you've spent your life worshiping a being that isn't actually the "real" god.  It goes back to my first post in response.  There's a 50/50 shot - either there is a god or there isn't a god.  The theist side has to divide their 50% by every god ever claimed.  The atheist/agnostic/non-believer side remains at 50%.  It seems that the smart bet, unless you flip a coin and happen to pick the one "right" god out of thousands, is still non-belief in light of the appalling lack of evidence.

                    Secondly, if there is a god - I'm pretty sure that if his attributes are accurate, he will know who is believing in him in order to hedge their bets, and who's believing in him out of love or adoration.  A god that isn't smart enough to know that isn't one that is particularly worth worshiping.

    3. JMcFarland profile image93
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Utterly ineffective.   It appeals to fear which is a powerful motivator for some,  but isn't good enough.   Let alone the fact that the wager is skewed towards atheism.   Either a god exists,  or a god doesn't exist.   These are the only two possibilities.   So the 50% chance that a god does not exist stands.  The other 50% in favor of a god then has to be divided by every good ever posited,  which makes it a fraction for any particular god.   Why wager when it's more likely that you'll pick the wrong one and end up worse off than not believing at all.   If a god exists,  would he be angrier that someone withheld belief sure to lack of evidence,  or that someone spent their entire life worshiping someone else?

    4. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What are your thoughts now that it has been explained to you? Do you understand why educated and thinking people laugh at this so-called "wager"?

  2. WiccanSage profile image97
    WiccanSageposted 2 years ago

    PW is so horribly flawed.

    First, because belief is not a choice. If someone told me believing in unicorns would grant me eternal life, I can't just switch everything I know and understand about the world and start believing in unicorns if I just don't believe in them. I can lie about it, and say I do, but that wouldn't really be believing.

    Second, because it assumes there's only two possible outcomes-- belief in Christianity, or non-believe. But what if you become a Christian and it turns out you've been worshiping a false messiah? Or that you have not been worshiping Allah properly? Or that you've offended the 'true God' Lucifer and other Pagan Gods by calling them devils?

    In other words, Pascal pretends Christianity is a win-win situation here, when it's not. Christians could just as easily be the wrong ones on the side of that wager.

    It's not either/or-- it's more like Russian roulette, with thousands of bullets in the chambers and only 1 empty chamber. Everyone is at risk.

    The final problem is that PW assumes there is no problem with living a Christian life and turning out wrong. He's wrong-- if that's the only life you have to live, and you lived it untrue to yourself, all to avoid some imaginary 'hell', then you blew it.

    What if you're gay and spend your only lifetime without love because you fear those repercussions that are never coming-- when alternatively you could have had a happy life with a partner? Or what if your child was gay and you made him self-loathing and shamed all his life, causing him depression and fear,  when he was doing something perfectly natural? Or what if you're a woman who does not want a child, but brings one into the world anyway out of fear of 'hell' should she have an abortion? What if you're that child brought into poverty and an abusive family who didn't really want you but feared abortion consequences?

    As you can see, PW is beyond flawed logic. It makes no sense at all.

    1. Doc Young profile image81
      Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ... thank you for your pleasant response ... it calls for a reply ...... two items ... are you saying lucifer is the true god or is that an option for comparison ...  second, i don't know pascal's true beliefs other than he was making his "wager" statement from a Christian perspective which, though one may expand on it for debate, eliminates the numerous other supposed religions ... and like all defenseless dead folks, we can only assume what he meant or truly believed ... was he serious or was he doing an absurdum ... at this point, only God knows ...

      1. WiccanSage profile image97
        WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Doc;

        What I'm saying is that IF Lucifer turned out to be the 'true God', then how does that help Christians who took PW? They have to face the true God in the afterlife and explain why they called him an evil devil fallen angel. If he's anything like they think YHWH is, he's going to be pissed and unforgiving.

        To eliminate all other possibilities would make PW a 'sucker's bet'.,. because the fact is there are many possibilities. That's like saying your life depends on guessing whether an orange or an apple is hidden in a paper bag, when in fact it can be any fruit ever know (and maybe some unknown ones). Just by the odds, picking either an orange or an apple would likely mean you're screwed.

        I don't know what PW meant to Pascal... I can only give my perspective on it as it was stated. I do know a lot of people have posed it to me seriously as if it was supposed to be a good argument. It's not.

        As for "God only knows"-- maybe. But which one? That's exactly why the wager doesn't work.
        ~Peace

        1. Doc Young profile image81
          Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ... i would agree with you on the pw thing ... just picking brains ... faith is not a wager as some might think ... as to lucifer, that's another matter ... absent God (which i find impossible) we have no lucifer, a created being of God ... give him presence, as does the Bible, we see a most stupid being ... highest of angels wasn't good enough for him ... but then his stupidity or lack of total intelligence or whatever it might be called, shows ... he wants to be like the most high God ... does any intelligent being that wants to be in control only aspire to being like that which he would dispossess ... doesn't ambition aspired to be better, the best not just a copy of that which they want to dethrone ... the only answer is lucifer knows God to be omni- in all facets ... therefore stupidity shows to the utmost ... can one defeat that which is undefeatable ... no, yet our pointy tail demon continues ... in the corporeal world, it would be called insanity (as einstein once said) ... Biblical record shows he has lost on every occasion in his war with God ... ambitious, yes ... persistent, yes ... winner, no ... future ... perdition ... along with those that fail to recognize the God of creation ... but its their choice ... and i do appreciate your thoughts ... thanks again ...

          1. WiccanSage profile image97
            WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Once again, you are forgetting that the Christian perspective is not the only one, and that is exactly the flaw I am pointing out.

            Keep in mind: I don't believe in the existence of the Christian God OR the Christian devil, so this is all hypothetical to me.

            What if Biblical record is totally wrong? What if YHWH doesn't even exist? What if Lucifer is and always was a beautiful Pagan God of Light that Pagans worshiped before Christian priests came and slandered him with biblical lies and falsehoods, calling him "Satan" and saying he was a mere rebellious punished angel?

            And now Christians have to face Lucifer, the *real* God in this possible scenario, the *true* God, and explain why they took the word of a bunch of bronze-age goat-herders and participated in slandering him. A lot of hemming and hawing shall follow.

            Let them explain that "Pascal's Wager" put them up to it. See if that cuts ice.

            This is what I's saying is wrong with PW...  it could only possibly work if there truly were ONLY 2 choices: Christianity or nothing. But, there is way way way way way more than 2 possibilities. The Bible might not be the "one true scripture". It might be drivel. Mythology. 

            The Hindu Upanishads might be the true scriptures. Or the Jewish scriptures (in which Jesus did not meet the messianic requirements, thus leaving Christians worshipers of a false messiah). Or perhaps the 'right' scriptures were the destroyed and forgotten oral traditions of ancient Pagans-- destroyed by whom? Christians. 

            According to Pascal's Wager, people who place their 'bet' on the Christian Bible are taking as much of a risk as anyone else in the world, and have just as much a chance of losing. It is just so not a 'sure thing' for Christians.


            And once again I say-- believe is absolutely, positively *not* a choice.

            So the very notion a God is evil enough to punish people for being wrong also poses a problem in PW.

            1. Doc Young profile image81
              Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ... again, pw is a flawed theorem as I have already agreed ... however, i don't recognize nor consider any but the God of Heaven, the Creator ... as most call Him, the Christian God ... all else is, including pagan, middle east, far east gods are a fabrication, a corrupt copy of God (wanting to be like the most high God) ... they were and are fashioned after the timeless writings of the Bible, OT and NT ... lucifer does exist, yes ... an evil, insidious being who knows he is headed for a firery pit along with all his minions, fallen angels and any other being that choses to follow him ... the demonic hatred of all the God has spurs him to pull as many with him as possible ... but every individual must make their choice as they will be the ones the will either enjoy or suffer eternity ... by choice ... as was lucifers ... i suspect a searching, wondering atheist or agnostic will do better in front of God at judgement than the satan worshipers ... so i would invite you and all reading to consider their state before God ... we don't know what the next second will bring ...

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Actually the God of the OT was fashioned after the Gods of previous cultures. One of which had 10 generations of leaders which lived extremely long lives sent by the heavens before the flood, just as the OT says happened only it was written and documented well before the OT. The research is fascinating and revealing and well worth it.

                1. Doc Young profile image81
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... if you are speaking of urartu or akkadian you only need look at the dates of their supposed beginning, existence and kingships to realize there are some faulty figures there ... however we must also be aware that no civilization of today can factually place their beginning prior to circa 2300 BC ... the time of the Great Flood ... and when they state otherwise, its always "hidden in uncharted antiquity" ... the Bible, the greatest history book ever written still stands ...

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That's actually not true.  And no one has been able to prove the date of the Great flood - and most scientists deny that a world-wide flood ever happened.  There simply isn't any evidence to support it.

                    http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture3b.html

                    http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC

                    I would argue that you have to a) substantiate your claim that the Bible is the greatest "history" book of all time b) substantiate that it is actually history and c) substantiate that it still stands.

                    Keep in mind - recollecting real, historical places does not equate to actual history.  If that were the case, then I could, in turn, argue that because the Spider Man comic books are set in New York City and New York City exists, then spider man is not only real, but historical.
                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9983820_f248.jpg

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, actually I was speaking of the people of Sumer. Almost 7.5 thousand years ago. Look it up.

                  3. WiccanSage profile image97
                    WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There's no evidence of a great flood ever happening, let alone a time for the alleged great flood.

                    The Bible is not evidence of anything; it's yet to be proven a valid source.

                  4. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So - you weren't really looking for a discussion then? You just wanted to spread unsubstantiated nonsense and have an argument about a majikal flood that never happened.

                    No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. sad

              2. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I understand that you believe that,  but how do you demonstrate it to be true?   Your God is simply one in a long line of worshiped deities,  some going back for thousands of years, prior to when the Bible depicts events.   Even early Christian writers acknowledge that jesus is similar to earlier gods in an attempt to pause and convert pagans.   Believing it is one thing asserting it as fact without backup is entirely something else.

                1. Doc Young profile image81
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... one has to be able to separate "Christian writers" from "believing Christian writers" ... there are a lot folks around today that don't believe this and that as stated in the Bible ... they say so from pulpits in "Christian churches" ... the pseudo-sciences spit out things daily and folks grab onto them just as quickly ... but the folks that believe their daily, weekly, monthly, yearly updates won't have these vain experts standing next to them when its time to give an accounting to God ... the Bible is able to prove itself ... never been proven wrong, never will ... and i rest comfortably in that ...

              3. WiccanSage profile image97
                WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Funny... the Gods you call 'copies' came first (People were worshiping Pagan Gods before the concept of YHWH or Satan ever was invented).

                You speak of the OT, which was based on Jewish scriptures, and Jews never (and still don't) believe Satan was a 'fallen angel' or a 'devil'. In Judaism, he always has, and still works, for YHWH. I find that ironic that you would bring it up, considering the whole Christian concept of 'satan' was nothing more than a mistranslation of the original Hebrew scriptures.

                Insisting there's only 2 possibilities (your God or no God) does not make it true, though. You might have made your choice and wish to ignore all others, but it doesn't mean other possibilities don't exist.

                Like I said, I don't believe in the Christian concept of God or devil at all. In fact, I think there's a better chance that Pagan Gods are the true Gods and the Christian God and Devil are the cheap fabrications. But if it's possible for one God to exist and be the 'true' one, it's possible for any of the others to exist and be the 'true' one. Pagans, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. are all just as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours.

                Anyone who believes there's a higher power has to consider the possibilities. or they can never claim to know truth.

  3. Sed-me profile image83
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    So strange... so many ppl willing to take the risk.
    Maybe if we just tried to explain what we've experienced b/c we want good for all these ppl.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - what a risk. Allah might punish you for not following the one true god.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Jokes... I joke a lot. I don't make a lot of jokes about being judged by a righteous God.
        Seems a risky wager.

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the god you claim to worship is such a nasty piece of work I would not lower my morals low enough to worship it. Sorry - I have standards.

          What if the Muslims are right? wink

          1. Sed-me profile image83
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My heart goes out to you. If I could help in some way, I would.

            1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
              Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I would offer the care you need if I could, sadly I suspect you would reject it. sad

              1. Sed-me profile image83
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you really do care, thank you. smile

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                  Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I do - you should seek professional help.

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That doesn't sound like kindness. It just sounds like more mockery.
                    I will leave you to your fun.

  4. bBerean profile image60
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    http://happycarpenter.blogs.com/the_happy_carpenter/images/oysters_el_grande_style-thumb.jpg

    Giant Oyster Fossils Found at 13,000 Feet

    Over 500 fossilized oysters were found in 2001 by  Cuban paleontologist, Arturo Vildozola near the town of Acostambo,  nearly two miles above sea level in the Andes mountains of Peru.  The bi-valve, ocean dwelling mollusks indicate quite obviously that at one time, despite the high altitude, that these mountains had been under water, as would happen in a worldwide flood.   The fossilized oysters (Plagiostoma giganteum) reached a width of 12 feet and weighed up to 650 pounds.

    The fossils were disseminated over a wide area. The oysters were found closed suggesting that they had not been eaten, or had died a natural death. The shells of dead oysters tend to open and the fact that they were closed suggests that they were prevented from opening by burial in silt and earth.

    It should further be noted, no remnants of Oyster hiking or climbing gear were found, bringing doubt to the theory that the oysters climbed the mountains themselves.

    1. Sed-me profile image83
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/10093764.jpg

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/40/45/6a/40456ad9bdc5fff07088aa21094b78fe.jpg

        Perfect.  I knew about the clams, but not oysters:

        http://media.komonews.com/images/131218_ivars_tunnel_clam_660.jpg

        1. Sed-me profile image83
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Why would they have chicken legs?

    2. JMcFarland profile image93
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Seashells … of_a_flood

      http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/frank … report.htm

      I'm not sure that creationism today or answers in Genesis is a reputable source for information about science,  geology or,  well,  anything.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Neither, obviously is a world renowned archaeologist or news source.

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Numerous times when I used to engage in these conversations in the forums I would point out that covering the mountains was no big feat if the mountains weren't mountains yet.  I would go on to explain how that might be, but no matter how clear I tried to make it I would be shouted down with how impossible miles of water covering the earth was.  Detractors heard nothing I said, always referring back to miles and miles of water depth being required for such a ludicrous idea. 

        At least this forces the Scientism crowd to come up with what I have been saying all along.  Not really looking to engage in a forum where this is not even the topic, but the repeated cries for evidence prompted me to break silence and post.

        1. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Lol scientism?

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Fits to a "T", regardless if the universal mantra is denial. wink

            1. JMcFarland profile image93
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Fits what to a t, and what am I denying,  exactly?   Do you somehow know me in person away from hp to make that assertion?

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Only how you represent yourself here.  For all we know in real life you are still a Baptist missionary and this is just for fun. You are correct that we have no way to know the truth about anyone here.

                1. JMcFarland profile image93
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem is that you can't get away with making stuff up.   There are fossils towards the tips of mountains.   How did they get there?   Could it be because of the biblical flood?   Sure,  why not.   Now how do you prove casualty,  rather than just saying "the flood did it" without providing supporting evidence?   Could it also be a result of something other than the flood?   Sure.   Now what is the evidence in support of that?

                  I don't see that being scientifically literate as being a follower of scientism, and I don't see that asking for evidence instead of a magical explanation for something is a bad thing,  I'm sorry.  I was not a part of any conversation I can recall with you about the flood,  so I can't speak for what was our wasn't said.   From my previous interactions with you about other science related material,  your apparent disdain for it accept when it appears to support your position is off-putting.   I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye to discuss,  though.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I love science.  Always have.  Never cared for the religions that have been spawned by the exploitation of it based not on facts, but compounded interpretations of what real facts may mean.  For reference purposes, I collectively call all the denominations of this Scientism, although hardly anyone who would qualify based on the beliefs they espouse would claim the moniker.  Not meant to be pejorative, considering it leaves in tact all the beliefs those it describes, claim.  Again, I guess we are a bit off topic.

                2. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Out of curiosity, what would/could possibly be the benefit of such actions?

                  hmm

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Just reinforcing her point that we don't really know each other.  At least not when everyone wants evidence and proof.

            2. Doc Young profile image81
              Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ... i fail to see how "... the mountains were covered ..." Genesis 7:20, and not have the water spill over into the next valley, and the next valley, and the next valley, etc. ... whatever happened to the pure sciences, such as physics? ...

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I am not at home where I have research materials, but let me ask you how tall a mountain is?  I know the smallest registered is under 500ft, while the tallest hill has a summit of nearly 2400 ft.  If most terrain were relatively level it wouldn't take much to be a "mountain".

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So your are saying 7 thousand years ago there were no mountains? All these mountain grew to there current height within the last 7 thousand years?

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Please understand we have done this all before, and while I actually enjoy it, I don't have time.  I just was providing some food for thought since the oysters force those who would normally avoid it to see it is possible the entire earth could have been covered and the mountains raised up after since clearly that was the progression in that local.  Lots of sea fossils are found in mountains all over.  Go figure.

                    So two quick answers and back to work...

                    If you started primarily with fresh water, that is what you would see.

                    Considering I believe God could create another universe in literally no time if He chose to do so, raising mountains up quickly to provide dry land when ending the flood would hardly be a reach.   

                    Please take no disrespect, Rad.  I enjoy the banter, but don't have the time right now.  I pop in when I can and use whatever time I can spare...I would do it much more if I could.

                2. Doc Young profile image81
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... it really makes no difference since the previous verse makes it clear that Moses is talking about every/all hills and mountains ... unless the water stood up likes the "walls" of water in Exodus 14:22, and there is absolutely no reference to this, the laws of physics would have the water "seek its own level" ... so if the "mountains were covered" by 22.5 feet of water, that would mean all the earth ... Genesis 7:19 ...

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm going to give this a shot, I understand your beliefs will not allow you to see the reason behind my point, but I'll do it anyway.

          The Black sea is an example of what happens when sea levels rise over land. It was a fresh water lake during the last ice age, there is plenty of evidence of this in beaches underwater, camps and fresh water snail shells. The black sea is currently salt water sea.

          If there were a global flood why do we currently have fresh water lakes? Wouldn't they all be salt water?

  5. Righteous Atheist profile image60
    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago

    Beth - still waiting on your irrefutable proof. wink

    1. Sed-me profile image83
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If you choose not to believe, I can't offer you anything else. I wish you well.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How strange that you asked me that question then. Still - at least you now admit you have no proof. Thank you.

        1. Sed-me profile image83
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's all a game, 'til it's not anymore.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah - indeed. As you will no doubt discover when Allah burns you for making a mistake and following the wrong Invisible Super Being. How scary for you.

            Thanks for admitting you have no proof.

 
working