Matthew 19:24

op just got rekt
the lazy who dont put whats given to them to work will end up with nothing.

Hitler 14:88
"do with your shares the opposite of what the jew recommends"

pascal's wager has been BTFO'd by 100 different notable intellectuals over the past century

logically it's nonsense precisely because literally any infinite combination of things could happen in the afterlife, christians already think they're in possession of the truth so they just assume that's the only case in pascal's wager. you're playing pascals wager with literally every god that could exist, it's a pointless bet

>taking the advice of ancient butthurt nocoiners

((notable intellectuals))

>implying I want to live in a kingdom that would deny me a harem

lol

Richfags BTFO

>not addressing any of my points
>also not just scrolling down the wikipedia page for pascal's wager
>also retarded enough to unironically give any credence to pascal's wager because you're too dense to consider the fact that your particular god is just as likely as any other which means you're playing pascal's wager with zeus, allah, the lizard king, etc

there should be a God thats bigger, stronger, older than all the other Gods right, i mean.. theoretically ?

>what is the fallacy of composition
also i have no interest in this topic anymore, can you sauce that pic for me?

Allah is just the arab word for god, arab christians use the word allah. Islam is the same as Judaism and Christianity, in that they're separate religions that pray to the same god.

>daddy comes home
> you suddenly "have no interest in the topic anymore"

nice semantics
>islam and christianity pray to the same exact god
also nice meme

also how does that hurt my point in any way? think of any god that has ever been conceived in any religion, ones that haven't been conceived. you're playing pascal's wager with all of them. how dense are you?

I just imagined grinding a camel to liquid and having it go through the eye of a needle.

Is there something wrong with me?

Ecclesiastes 11:2
Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.

> not investing in 7 alt coins

yes in 8

you don't play agains the dealers, you play against the House

no. some dude born 1000 years ago is isolated to rest of the world and there is no knowledge of anything outside of his area and his religion. hes not playing with buddha or allah. he is playing with the god of the religion he was born into.
think user

In what way is it semantics or a meme? Christianity and Islam are both directly built on Judaism's god. No muslim would consider allah to be a separate diety from judaism's elohim/yahweh or christianity's father/deus they are all different names for the same thing.

Hang on, what's so sinful about making investments in the modern day? Greed is still a thing sure, but all we're doing is trading money with other people who are willing to trade theirs at whatever price. We both consent to make a financial exchange, a balance of give-and-take, there's no one end of the stick here. What's the issue? I can understand gambling with money that isn't yours or losing other people money, but if you do everything on your own volition where's the problem?

more and more dense with each reply

you're playing against any which one that could potentially exist, as they're the ones that pass judgement. the main flaw with pascal's wager is that it has nothing to do with the particular god you believe in

Semantics because God can be a general or specific term. Allah means god, however it's generally used to refer to a particular god. It doesn't matter if they're both derivative of Judaism's god; I wouldn't have said Neolithic man and Neanderthals were the same thing just because they have a relatively recent common ancestor. They are different gods. AND AGAIN, either way, my argument is against Pascal's wager on the basis that (as I said) it's not referring to any particular god. So anyone that uses Pascal's wager unironically is brain-dead

i just want you to understand
that they are talking about the Most High God.
which by definition would have no competitors and would be the Supreme Deiety .
your not gonna rope me into a discussion , because i know you are all lonely virgins,
and besides, im a satanist.
i just want you to get your definitions right.
you can make up any odds you want in your head for black jack.
but you are always playing against the house odds, no matter what story you are telling yourself otherwise.

please try to be scientific.
please dont' reply to me.
i dont want to talk to u .
i just dont wanna see you mangle the data.

>It doesn't matter if they're both derivative of Judaism's god
I think it matters a great deal, considering allah and deus as separate entities is absolutely wrong

the real translation is rope not camel.
they sound similar to a white person studying assyrian.

hey while were on the subject, all the translations of jesus being "the son of man" is in fact "the son of men" as in "bro" or "chum"

and always remember, without jesus bitcoin is nothing.

no. everything you said is semantics.

herein lies the problem.

Meme a little, turns into a full on debate

The eye of the needle isn't an actual needle. But a mountainous pass on a rocky ledge. Leading through MT zion.

>invent really big needle
>go to heaven

checkmate, god

.. ? good one you really got me there
What? Dude you can't be this dense. You started shitposting me about how the Islamic god and the Christian god are exactly the same. They aren't. Here's a great source on why you're completely wrong: ciu.edu/content/allah-islam-same-yahweh-christianity

They're both derivative of a "common ancestor". If you seriously want to spend hours arguing about that dumb fucking point, when you're wrong about it, and when the entire argument from the beginning was just about Pascal's fucking wager and how christian's use it to pretend believing in their particular god is the logical choice, then go for it. You haven't once addressed my argument against Pascal's wager. Why? Because you can't just recognize you were autistic to even mention it in the first place (assuming that was you). If it wasn't you, that's even more autistic of you

I don't feel like actually clicking into this thread to match ID's

Reminder that Veeky Forums is a capitalist board. Keep your poorfag christcuckery on the loser boards, please.

I'm legit just saying,
>actually using pascal's wager is fallacious because it has nothing to do with any particular god
and then Christians just started tackling me left and right with semantical arguments that don't address that point at all. Not only that, but they're entirely wrong in their semantics as well. So what the fuck?

Just keep this religious garbage off of Veeky Forums please

it's not a "particular god", there is only one god

Makes sense. The first thing actually exists while the second is a make-believe sky fairy for the uneducated slave caste.

I'm not the guy who was talking about pascal's wager retard

I just want enough money to not worry about working ever again. You can take all my money when my time will come.

Amen. I am looking for happiness in the principle of never having to think about money ever again but id need to be extremely rich to accomplish this

i don't need a kike on a stick telling me how to live my life. thank you

>logically it's nonsense precisely because literally any infinite combination of things could happen in the afterlife
You have no idea what logical means, as you are using it wrong. Almost anything is logical, although it can be faulty. For your whole "Christians assume" crap, you are making the mistake of, ironically, assuming all Christians believe in Pascal's wager, unless you meant "some Christians."

You also (ironically, again) validate the logic behind pascal's wager via claiming it's the same with any belief. The whole point is that if a belief wasn't true, nothing was lost as the individual lived what they deemed a fulfilling life.

>dude just stay jacked into the matrix who cares about the truth
religion truly is the greatest bluepill

Your religious illiteracy is showing. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a different set of moral codes that are usually incompatible with one another. Ignoring the fact you are ready oblivious to the religions claiming you have to be a part of them to go to heaven, a lot of their teachings go against one another.

In Christianity lying is a sin, under Islam, lying is permitted under circumstantial events (various forms). Christianity claims all people have access to salvation whilst Judaism (varies by sect) claims Jews are God's chosen people, and are the only ones with access to salvation. Not to mention that each of the three religions has different literature such as the Talmud, Hadiths, New Testament, etc.

In order for your claim to be true, all three religions would have to have moral codes that are indifferent from one another. As they all claim to be derrived from God. If they do not worship the same God, then their moral codes will not be indifferent, as they each have a different set of moral codes that they claim comes from God.

Similar origins =/= worshipping the same deity.

Matthew 25

“Similarly, it is like a man going on a trip, who called his servants and turned his money over to them. 15To one man he gave five talents,h to another two, and to another one, based on their ability. Then he went on his trip.

16“The one who received five talentsi went out at once and invested them and earned five more. 17In the same way, the one who had two talentsj earned two more. 18But the one who received one talentk went off, dug a hole in the ground, and buried his master’s money.

19“After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The one who had received five talents came up and brought five more talents. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you gave me five talents. See, I’ve earned five more talents.’

21“His master told him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy servant! Since you’ve been trustworthy with a small amount, I’ll put you in charge of a large amount. Come and share your master’s joy!’

22“The one with two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I’ve earned two more talents.

23“His master told him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy servant! Since you’ve been trustworthy with a small amount, I’ll put you in charge of a large amount. Come and share your master’s joy!’

(1/2)

Nice deflection.

(2/2)
24“Then the one who had received one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you haven’t planted and gathering where you haven’t scattered any seed. 25Since I was afraid, I went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here, take what’s yours!’

26“His master answered him, ‘You evil and lazy servant! So you knew that I harvested where I haven’t planted and gathered where I haven’t scattered any seed? 27Then you should’ve invested my money with the bankers. When I returned, I would’ve received my money back with interest.’ 28Then the master said,l ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the man who has the ten talents, 29because to everyone who has something, more will be given, and he’ll have more than enough. But from the person who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away from him. 30Throw this useless servant into the darkness outside! In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

What am I deflecting from? I just saw your anti-intellectual horseshit and made an observation.

>>dude just stay jacked into the matrix who cares about the truth
No counter-arguments
>anti-intellectual horseshit
Opinions are worthless when debating, logic isn't the equivocal of rationality.

This is a logical statement:
>if strawberries are fruit, and strawberries are red, then therefore, all fruits are red
It's untrue, but it is still logical. The same applies to the logic of pascal's wager. The whole point is that regardless, to the individual (in their own view), they didn't lose out on anything. Pascal's wager may rely in faulty logic, but it is still logical.

All ya'll heathens need some Biblepay