Is this not the dumbest thing ever said?

No, I have neard dumber from some Atheists. (Not much dumber, but dumber nonetheless.)

I resisted the temptation to see if someone else put in Pascal's wager. There also seems to be the (false) assumption that only Christians are moral and fulfilled. She seems to think she is capable of thinking as an Agnostic would. To me, it is obvious she missed that one by the proverbial mile. She ignored the fact that many Christians are anything but kind and loving. She ignored the fact that Christianity is in many ways over thirty thousand and counting divisions and denominations, not one unified religion. Why would a Christian not capitalize the word Christian? I capitalize Atheists out of respect and I am definitely not one. She assumed that Christianity is an "idea" that one can get. She ignored the fact that most Christians believe not everyone, including even not all Christians, are saved. She stated that the idea behind Christianity is doing something "just in case." While that is the idea behind Pascal's wager, it is far from what Christianity is based on. And finally she ignored that if there is no God, then a great deal of what she devoted her time to was just a waste and could have been better spent.

Is that enough, or do I actually have to think about it?

Want me to give you a few dozen examples of the dumb things Atheists say?

Didn't think so.

P.S. I am a member of the Baha'i Faith. Time for world peace? Time for the Baha'i Faith.

This argument is so common that it has been given a name: Pascal's Wager.

The major flaw in this argument is false bifurication, which is dividing results into two sides when there are really more. In this case, the Christian has divided his analysis into two results, "I'm right, and God exists" or "I'm wrong, and no gods exist". Of course, there are infinite other possibilities than just a Christian god existing if a god exists, and many of those would have dire consequences for the Christian and great rewards for the atheist. After all, I can think up many gods that would like that atheists don't follow what other people made-up and think on their own.

There is also the implicit falsehood that being Christian means having a fulfilling life full of kindness and fellowship and that not being Christian means not having a fulfilling life and so on. The fact is, studies have shown that Christians and non-Christians both have fulfilling lives, tend to show kindness towards others, and have fellowship with others of like beliefs. Therefore, it really isn't part of the either/or analysis.

This analysis also ignores the increasing harm that religious belief is causing to society. It would be hard to find two religions, or even two sects of a religion that haven't attacked each other, killed each other, or oppressed each other. While you could argue that wars are profit and power based, you'll hardly find any conflict that hasn't been made worse by religious differences.

That's good old Pascal's wager again. Yawn. Don't know if it's the dumbest thing but it'll be on the top ten list somewhere.

The major mistakes are: not calculating the number and the probabilities of the alternatives (afterlife or no one, god or no one, which god if any, preferences of the real god if any, and so on), i. e. not making a risk/reward analysis. For example, the truth could be that Odin is the one and real god and he prefers people to die in battle. In this case, the christian-type people are stuffed. Not that I believe in such a thing. When calculating probabilities, I always get a 0.001% chance that the FSM might be real, all other deities are below the threshold of measurement.

Here is a perfect example of how to sound completely deluded.

Also what would the Christian's have after death if there is no life beyond? Won't they like the rest of us just twinkle out of existence or will their belief create for them an afterlife regardless? Was the woman stoned when she wrote that?

She's pretending to be an agnostic, but only from looking at the Christian objective... many more religions and philosophies than that of Christianity. It also just looks like she doesn't get it. And... she's speaking from a theo-centric point of view.

Let's not forget the comment about life after death, she assumes there's something there. She can't fully remove herself from the Christian mindset.

It's the ye-olde Pascal's wager all over again.

And there's a lot of problems with that. I'll elaborate on demand, but really I think everybody here knows the obvious flaws in Pascal's Wager.

But that's not even bad. Go to www.fstdt.com and meet the truly fascinating displays of 'logic'.

she basicly says that she only thinks theres an afterlife to make her actual life fulfilling and meaningful... so much for faith

(idk if theres an afterlife or not im just saying)

if a was an agnostic i'd think christians have the right idea ... thats cool

i get what she says and she makes sort of sense but isnt that what all religions are for ?

I cant spot mistakes from peoples opinions, but from the eyes of an ACTUAL agnostic, that is not how I would describe christianity...

I have to wonder why people feel impelled to mock others. This is obviously a young person who has come up with Pascal's Wager on her own. I think she should be commended for thinking about her own existence, not made fun of. Shame on all of you.

Yes

"If I were to look at Christianity through an agonstic point of view.......I would say that Christians have the right idea"

LOL