🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <V_aod.198691$9b.145742@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:idaod.198669$9b.184097@edtnps84...
>> In article <ZW9od.198658$9b.65378@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:VA8od.198383$9b.141718@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84>,
>DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >>I don't imagine He will care.  But even if He does, a theist has MUCH
>> >better
>> >> >>odds of winning; ie. better than zero
>> >> >
>> >> >Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
>> >> organism
>> >> >in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his
>life,
>> >> which
>> >> >he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
>> >that
>> >> his
>> >> >existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral difference between
>> >engaging
>> >> in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual (obsessive-compulsive
>> >> disorder).
>> >>
>> >
>> >I suggest you read the definition of OCD then.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I suggest you find an argument, smokeblower
>>
>I don't argue with anyone who doesn't understand the definitions about wht
>they are arguing about. 

you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the definitions of what 
I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of that argument, 
nor have you provided any indication that you understand the definitions of 
what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions of the words 
I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?