Whoa now, you're saying you don't assume that people around you exist?
Did he say that? Or rather, aren't you doing exactly what he asked Grace not to do? That is, make assumptions about what he thinks. Why don'y you ask him instead of putting words in his mouth?
You mention axioms as statements you can put forth without needing to prove them. Now if that's legit, then nobody needs to argue because we don't need to prove our points.
Well, that's exactly what axioms are. Statements that are not derived but rather assumed to be true.
You don't have to play, of course. If you refuse to grant the axiom that a thing is equal to itself, for instance, then you don't have to play the math game. But the fact that math is simply so damn useful, I think, is evidence that there's some utility to be had by taking some axioms at face value. Rrhain may have another justification.
I think that's kind of a proverbial bitch-slap toward Christianity that isn't really on topic.
No, it's a crass way of pointing out the flaw in the assumption underlying Pascal's Wager - that there's only two alternatives: belief in your idea of god or atheism. The vast plurality of religious experience in the world shows that this is not so, and therefore, Pascal's Wager is insufficient justification for your religion.
(Did you all see
The Mummy? And there's that weasely digger guy who releases the mummy and becomes his servant? Remember that scene where he reaches under his shirt and pulls out religious icons for
every one of the major religions and starts praying in all their languages? That's what you guys look like when you invoke Pascal's Wager, because that's what Pascal's Wager is: hedging your bets with false devotion to a religion you don't really believe in. Is that sufficient justification for your faith? Somehow, I doubt it.)
™ Version 4.2
