1. You started arguing with the rebuttal to Pascal's wager. What am I supposed to take away from that? "Oh, he's just arguing with me for the sake of arguing, not to actually argue about what I'm refuting."? I think not.
2. You posted a picture in a response to a bunch of pictures. Again, what am I supposed to take away from that?
These assumptions are just going off of what you have implied through your own actions.
I never stated anything based off of Pascal's wager. I made basic defenses against claims made by you in a general form. If I was basing it off Pascal's Wager, I would have stated so. I don't imply when I explain something, that's your deal if you assume as much.
I posted pictures in defense to an attack and if you read the caption I had for them, you'd know I wasn't being serious about it as shown by the third picture about Christians and Atheists beating upon a scientologist.
I imply nothing, I have stated quite clearly my intentions. You assume once again what I'm thinking and as usual react in a completely wrong and defensive way. This is why it's pointless to argue with you because you have your judgments about any person religious and group them all into one large group whom you don't regard on a similar intellectual level as you think yourself to be.
