Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to identify who ...)

From: Susan Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 11:15:55 EST

  • Next message: AutismUK@aol.com: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need t..."

    >Dear Steve
    >
    >>>>>>
    >I was reading the Koran the other day and it threatens me with eternal
    >punishment unless I become a Moslem. But I don't bother attacking
    >Moslems because I believe in my heart that there is *no* chance that
    >Islam is true and so Mohammed's God is no more a threat to me than
    >the Tooth Fairy.
    >
    >That Chris gets angry at the Christian God and Christians tells me that
    >despite all his philosophising, Chris still believes in his heart that
    >the
    >Christian God is real enough to be a threat. If He is real enough to
    >Chris to be a threat to him, then to Chris His probability cannot be 0.
    ><<<<<
    >
    >Bill Wald: (not a mind reader but) Chris probably gets annoyed at
    >Christians in the
    >same way that Christians get annoyed at Mormons and JWs who come to the
    >door. No one gets annoyed at Unitarians because they mind their own
    >business.

    It's not so much that we mind our own business, but that we consider
    proselytizing to be in bad taste. :-)

    Susan 

    -- 
----------

      I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be 
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is 
bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man 
as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the 
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of 
the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.

    ---Charles Darwin

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 11:16:48 EST