Spike Jones <email@example.com>,
> I have seen the cryonics notion go mainstream one person at a time,
> because of my risk/payoff matrix I display in my office. People get
> a 1000 km stare for a minute or two, then ask how much it costs,
> then say something like "Well, I don't really see any good reason
> not to get frozen I suppose. A long shot is better than no shot."
This is great, but how do you respond to atheist, which
comonly point out the falacy of "Pascal's wager" as an argument for
believing in God, that also claims such a "A long shot is better than
no shot." is the same invalid argument? I tried to make a response
but I have a feeling that I could or should have had a much better
response to this assertion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT