WARHOL'S "Scream"(Click on any image to ENLARGE IT.)
QUOTE / UNQUOTE
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." [Mark Twain]
"For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
that whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything." [Anon.]
SO - WAS PROF. BLAISE A COMPETENT MATHEMATICIAN?
In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is. Rejection of Pascal's Wager - Tobin
RANT, REV, RANT!I don't mind those who are born again, just as long as they don't think that they get twice as many rights. However we came to find ourselves on this miniscule, floating hunk of detritus in the universe, we have discovered within ourselves the ability to reason, to weigh evidence and form conclusions. This capability differentiates us from all the other mammals (so far).
Whether man has ascended from ancestral microbes in the primordial ooze - or he has been stuck here purposely by some overarching entity - it seems counterintuitive to this rational inquirer's way of thinking to assign legitimacy to anything that cannot be proved through the use of our reason. Other folks, believers, disagree, sometimes vehemently, insisting that God has revealed himself and his plan for us. They're quick to point out that if one does not understand so-called revealed truths, then the fault lies within one's self - that is, we have insufficient faith.
All "revelation" has been
relayed to us by other humans. If a creator has spoken to them, shouldn't he speak
to us all - in unequivocal terms that do not clash with the rational minds that
he surely must have intended for us to use? I see no evidence that any of the
"revelations" and rules for living that fill all the sacred texts are not the
product of human cogitation. I refuse to order my brief moment living in the
material world to the dictates of other humans, as Pascal suggested in his
Wager. In reality, if one lives according to the dictates of a religion that does not derive from his own rational intelligence, he squanders the essence of what it means to be human. That is a sucker's bet. Screw it. If God is viewing the infinite picture without benefit of controls or a joy stick - that's all the more reason to live life without irrational boundaries. It's like the JWs say, it's all cut & dried. You either have a place in heaven or you don't - nothin' you can do will change the big picture on God's Gameboy.
This is just presented as food for thought - derived from what believers have said about God. God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future
God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or were unaware of the evil. For purposes of this rant, I'll refrain from speculating on the possibility that God is sometimes drunk, or that the universe is the product of a committee, 'cuz the fundangelicals always scream at me when I make light of the stuff in their "sacred texts".
Maybe God is on such a higher plane of existence - and consciousness - that he (or she, or it) is unaware of us - you know, like we haven't discovered nearly half the microbes that share the planet with us, mostly inhabiting the dirt, whether cultivated, paved over or unspoiled.
So - Blaise Pascal, that rascal, presents his simplistic challenge:I concur with Atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie, who wrote:...Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.
To my rational inquirer's way of thinking, if God really revealed important stuff to the guys who assembled the "sacred texts", why doesn't he appear on Public Television with Bill Moyers and resolve all the questions, doubts, and fears?...Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable.
I don't believe in anything unless I can eat it, drink it, drive it, fuck it or perceive evidence of it. [Rev. Art]
I received a response to Brian Flemming's tongue-in-cheek exercise involving prayers to save people such as the trapped coal miners from dying:
"I don't see death as a terrible thing, I see it as something to embrace. I believe our time on earth is worthwhile and has great meaning, but I believe there is more to come that makes this part of the journey pale in comparison."
OH, PLEASE!!“Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God.” - [Robert T. Lee, Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments]
Good fortune. COMMENT. Please spread the meme. Don't smoke in bed...
