| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Voice of the World (Free verse) by Dovina They call us Third World
below the Second
below the First
because we have less
produce less
suffer more
But three are really one these days
we can help you understand
come and let us show you
hear the One World voice
Osama gives us food
teaches kids to read
Musharraf gives promises
and sewage in the street
Work all day to buy a chicken
or dine on scraps of rich
donât say we have democracy
and allies in the West
Fill not the mouth of famine
if you fear to make us strong
but feed the brains of young ones
not yet won to jihadâs cause
Come and give them options
show them one big world
maybe we will kill you
maybe they will not
Up the ladder:
To my Moneta
Down the ladder:
Green and Yellow
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.0
Posted: November 1, 2007 8:36 AM PDT; Last modified: January 16, 2008 3:17 PM PSTWeighted score: 5.094852 Overall Rank: 6153 Comments:
[n/a]
INTRANSIT @ 69.23.157.197
|
2-Nov-07/6:01 AM
|
Reply
My gut says, this is a jump off point for what you really want to say. Sit on it.
[n/a]
Dovina @ 66.215.80.177
> INTRANSIT
|
2-Nov-07/3:31 PM
|
Reply
You got that right. I never was any good at political poems. It just seems like we ought to listen more and shoot less.
I feel you working up to something in the first verse and then kinda fade away in the second, it needs some strength to show conviction. I like the idea of learning from an unexpected source.
not an unexpected source, really, just a bunch of people like us, who have got the shaft for a long time and just might have something to teach. Yep, I did fade away in the second verse; just can't quite get the questions together.
I guess I was thinking along the lines of the third world teaching the first world something - rather than the other way around. I like the concept of being humbled rather than worshipped...
You will get it together - I can feel it from here :)
Don't knock yourself for not writing good political poems--a writer as good as you will find a way--just be prepared for the backlash of idiot comments. I like this poem--the message is loud and clear. Maybe a few metaphors or similes might help? Just a thought--good work all the same.
You are right. With my rancher up, poetry slides in second.
How many hopeless people are suffering ?
Within the voiceless world and whoâs behind this show ? whoâs that child ? demonstrating the deep sense of famine in the heart of the heartless world Whoâs running this world ? Why some folks canât raise their voice ? As well as it raise so may questions In their bare minds and also abomination Far from the great expecation of human kind Could we understand how they live ? In the context of despairs Or in the mataphore of the wasteland Where you are blamed To build their worlds upon the toxic wastland And you started to obsever What they react insead of the word â livingâ All theyâre reactions or expermints on them It has only one message after all The show must go on for your better life and world You cant help yourself watching the opera The opear of third world Childernâre playing in the dumping ground While you try to be more sympathetic Because thatâs entertaining you Itâs not the reality of your life dealing with it ..itâs the dumping world and a good senior of a opera while the future is still bleak for them day after day they face their fatal fate you still dump things and they die in the dumping grave
Within the voiceless world, I hear a metaphor of the wasteland. Itâs not the reality of my life. I entertain myself by trying to be more sympathetic. You are onto something here. We give a dollar, feel better, go on our way. You can do more Voidless Prince. Join me at http://www.hopedevelopment.org/ Send an email to Rashad Javed. Tell him what you told me and ask how you can help. You might be surprised.
[X] Pointedly unanswered questions
I've read this over and over--it's still good but I feel like somthing is missing. Maybe another stanza or make stanza two the last one?
Well check again, the darn thing keeps growing.
I think Kipling said it best:
Take up the White Man's burdenâ The savage wars of peaceâ Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought. That is why I shan't be donating.
Fill not, then, the mouth of famine, if you fear this, but fill the brains of young ones, not yet bent on gihad, not fully convinced, as their madrasahs wish them to be, that unlike minds should die. Donate to this.
Oh I get it. They want to kill me because I don't believe in their stupid, horrid religion, so to stop that *I* have to pay *them* money? Yeah that makes sense-- reward the insolent and punish the victims.
Here's a better idea: they all stop believing in -=MUSLIM=- of their own accord, apologize for all the trouble they've caused, and pay reparations until they've learnt their lesson. I guarantee they'll be better off in the long run.
It took some time, but you're catching on. Just a couple of baby steps to go. Donate to this.
Would you rather live in a world without the Muslim religion?
No, but I'd be happier without the sects of that religion that want to kill infidels.
Yes, damn those sects. But as a gentleman, I would rather be done with the whole shebang. Many religions include some form of punishment for the infidel. Christianity (the religion that normals have) requires its followers to accept Jesu as their Saviour, else suffer an eternity of spanklings. Muslim is similarly punitive. Coincidence? Or is Punishment Of Infidels just a good survival mechanism for religion? It frightens people into blind faith. And violent sects are an inevitable corollary.
I said no because most Muslims are good people. Their religion helps them be decent citizens, and it gives them comfort. Some of their beliefs are weird, but so are some of yours. My beliefs are normal. Most people seem born with a god-shaped hole in their brains that is only satisfied by religion. So the completion begins; pundits of the gods run for election, some preaching âan eternity of sparklingsâ for unbelievers. But not all. Some preach love and tolerance, and they are the ones who better the world. Violent sects are perversions of religion. Why are they inevitable?
Because it's the sects that preach "Love thy infidel" that are the perversions. That's just not what the Bible says. Jesu doesn't love infidels. If he did, he wouldn't condemn them to eternity in Hell. Obviously.
http://tinyurl.com/2kertn
So if we got rid of every religious tendency then the whole world would suddenly become all happy joyful?
Is that what I said? No. I said the world would be better. The "religious tendency" is the tendency to hold beliefs based on insufficient evidence. That is what "faith" means. That this tendency is somehow A Good Idea, is beyond me. Not only is it A Bad Idea, it's a dangerous one, particularly when the faith is induced by the threat of Eternal Violence.
Consider your own position. Does religion make you a better person? I for one do not need divine inspiration to know that murder is naughty. Perhaps you do?
Religious tendency is not negotiable. Itâs what almost all of us are born with. Otherwise we would not see nearly every tribe and culture steeped in some kind of religion. So letâs not debate whether itâs good or bad, and just accept it. Like our tendency for sex, it leads to comforting and harmless activities if not perverted.
What I think about the afterlife destination of unbelievers has little affect on how I treat them, or how Jesus treated them. He said âLove your Enemyâ (infidels included). How is that a perversion of religion? Some religions say that murder is not naughty. They are perversions. I think it is naughty, not because of my religion, but because its naughtiness is obvious. The link between morality and religion may be weaker than you think.
Even if the religious tendency was inevitable, you could still argue whether or not it was a good thing. Obviously.
But the main point is that it's not inevitable in most people. With very few exceptions, people adopt the religion of those around them (their family, their madrasa, their badmington club), which makes it OBVIOUS that it's their environment that has led them to that particular belief system, rather than any hard-coded voices in their head. Just suppose the clamour they were subjected to everyday came from secularists, rather than from people exalting faith in The Local Religion as the highest virtue. In my view, religion is a throwback to our infancy as a species; to a time before we all became McEnlightened and had to worship shoehorns. Science has been enormously successful at explaining phenomena that were previously attributed to God. A powerful example (not to mention Darwinism) is the germ theory of disease: before that, the causes of infection were frequently attributed to punishments from God. When people see science contradicting their religion, they might initially reject it as heretical, but eventually the truth becomes Obvious Beyond Thunderdome, so they either water down their religion, or throw it in the nearest spastics home. That is why atheism is the fastest growing 'religious identity' in America. USA! USA! USA! Regarding your infidel point, what *do* you think about the afterlife of non-believers? Do you think they deserve eternal damnation? Finally, the link between religion and morality is not weaker than *I* think. It's weaker than religious people think. I already think it's weak, and where it does influence morality it's usually in a poisonous way (making good people do bad things). It's the Religious who argue that Religion is the only basis for morality.
Yes, these are some very âun-Dark Angel-likeâ things you are saying: âThe normal, healthy human being has empathy for other human beings.â Have your prior statements on the subject been abnormal or unhealthy? I will take this as if it were your first muttering about empathy and say that I agree.
Regarding my infidel point, what do I think about the afterlife of non-believers? Do I think they deserve eternal damnation? David Wilkerson appears to think so. I am not convinced. For example, if I knew my parents were burning in hell, I might strive to go there just be with them, rather than sit in heavenâs luxury. And wouldnât they be glad to see me in spite of the flames? Furthermore, at what age would they see me, and I them? With these confusions, I prefer to ignore any possible afterlife. Religion for me is here and now. Regarding religion and morality, I think we agree. Religion is relationship with God; morality is relationship with people.
That should be "un--=Dark_Angel=--like".
You're saying some most un-Dark Angel-like things. Or at least you're implying some such things. Do people need fear to keep them in check? Yes, actually. It doesn't have to be fear of eternal violence. It's usually just fear of immediate violence, such a clip round the ear for being a little rascal. But when that fear disappears, what substitute is there to maintain some sort of pleasant social behaviour? Here's an example: it makes no sense for a ten-year-old midget to hurl abuse at a six foot four inch 21-year-old. All logic says that it's a terrible idea from the 10-year-old's point of view. So why does he do it?
I'm not a particularly religious person. I had all my real hope bludgeoned out of me by your chums in the scientific world. I don't particularly want to murder someone, but then I'm a nice, boring person. And yes, I was brought up with mild religious undertones. Weren't you? Can I give in to the popular media for a moment and ask you about Mr. Newlove's killers? Why don't they seem to have any remorse? I think I've spent the last ten minutes just waffling around your original question. This is why I only got a 2:1.
I don't know his killers, but if they show no remorse then they're probably sociopaths. And sociopaths are sociopaths, irrespective of their religious identity. The normal, healthy human being has empathy for other human beings. I'm prepared to accept that empathy can be encouraged by upbringing, but it's also an innate capacity in the vast majority of people. This shouldn't come as a surprise because it's an advantage to our species that we co-operate with each other, and don't kick each other to death outside our homes. When it does happen, you're going to hear about it, because it's a newsworthy event and will be reported in a News which you will no doubt observe.
Here's one way to look at it: A group of Jews are hiding from Nazi troops just yards away. One of the Jews is a mother holding her newborn child. The child begins to cry loudly. What should the group do? The true scientist will say smother the child as the needs of many outway the needs of one. The average non-religious person would be conflicted. The true theologist would say nobody has the right to smother the child. Once you realize doing what's logical isn't always the same as doing what is right then you'll understand why religion is still around.
Unfortunately for you, there is nothing scientific about the proposition that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It's not even a statement that science can have an opinion on, because it is totally unverifiable (whereof we cannot speak, theoreof we must hang our heads in shame.)
But let me tell you another story: Once upon a time, I thought Morals were Magical Wisdoms Floating Around In The Clouds. I thought they were self-evident, timeless truths that were totally disconnected from the petty dealings of Man. That was when I was 6. And amusingly, it isn't far off the religious model for morality, in which The Wond'rous Mysteries of Right and Wrong are REVEALED to the faithful, usually through a text written by a complete prat. But Scripture and Holy Revelation are not good bases for morality, and they lead to dumplings like this: "Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: ... the bat." -- Deut. 14:11-18 A better basis is to simply ask yourself: what do I value? If I said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!" I would really be saying that I value human life, and that I would do whatever I could to minimize the net loss of human life. After a good deal of soul-searching (and several unfortunate soilings) I have discovered that I value human life, I value private property, I value personal freedom (provided that freedom does not lead to anyone being gay), and so on. I can't say WHY I value those things -- most are just innate impulses I have -- but the point is I would rather live in a world where people did value such things, so I do what I can to encourage it. The WHY is secondary. I may as well ask myself why I like chocolate. I JUST DO, OK!? In conclusion: you may eat bats if you wish.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is as verifiable as any statement you've made thus far about religion.
The objective of each Jew is to survive. So say you tell a computer to calculate the most probable action to take to ensure the most survivors. The computer will calculate that the highest chance to maximize the survivor count will be to smother the baby. Certainly you could tell the computer to calculate how all could survive but it is obvious that percentage of success would by far less. Have one of your nerdy tech buddies test it out if you need verification. I'm simply saying that religion is what keeps the group from killing the baby. Religion is a moral rule agreed upon by a group. Certainly the mother and maybe a few other jews might decide to spare the child based on their emotional response and sense of what is right but in order to unite the group in their decision you need a collective moral agreement that is been most effectively done through religion. Sometimes the scientific method is so inhuman that we chose an alternative. At least you show you're humanity through your Grinch-like actions. Most athiest i've met are about as fun as living under a rock.
Excuse the gramatical errors. I've been living far too long down south.
Perhaps you've been eating too many bats.
You are an extremely arrogant young man.
"The objective of each Jew is to survive." Is it? Science can't tell you anything about what each Jew's objective is. Given that they probably wouldn't smother the baby, it's clear their objective is a little more complicated than mere survival. It's probably something like "survive, provided you don't end up fucking over another Jew in the process." Now you could conceivably tell a computer to ASSUME some amoral objective (maximise survival), and then have it find the most efficient way of achieving that (smother the baby), but obviously that has nothing to do morality, and most importantly, NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT A GROUP OF ATHEISTS WOULD DO IN A SIMILAR SITUATION. Atheism doesn't mean "stop having emotions". Atheists are just as prone to their impulses as theists are. Atheism also doesn't say anything about whether or not baby smothering is A Good Idea. The actions of an atheist are determined by his value system, just as those of the Jew are determined by theirs. The only difference is that the atheist's value system hasn't been corrupted by an Omelette of Ancient Texts that read like the ramblings of a drugged horse.
And your arrogance blinds you. I'm merely saying religion is an effective way to create a moral consensus. Considering many moral decisions have to be made quickly it comes in quite handy. I have no doubt that athiests and the like can be very moral. Honestly though, do you really think any of the Jews want to die? I mean if we're going to question common sense here then I'm afraid we've both wasted far too much time. Even if part of they're objective is to not kill the baby they still would like to survive nonetheless. One more question: If atheistic morality is not influenced by emotionless cold logic nor by societies religeous influences (however ancient and rooted in the subconcious they may be) then where does it come from?
Your arrogance has swollen so far beyond thunderdome that it has retracted into its own balls and is now fuelling a second -=Even_Bigger_Arrogance=- that will blot out the sun and be gay.
To your first point, I agree religion can force a moral consensus (usually by threat of divine punishment), but obviously that's only an intra-denominational consensus. When it comes to forging consensus between people of a different faiths, its record is APPALLING. It has done more to divide the human race than just about anything else, with some unbelievably violent consequences. I'm ashamed of you. Secondly, are you seriously arguing for religion on the grounds that it speeds up moral decision making? (a) I don't think that's worth considering in the first place, and (b) even if it was, religion is probably one of the more long winded routes to making moral decisions, because it relies on Revealed Truth rather than any innate sense of conscience (you've got to trawl through some pretty obscure Bible verses before you discover that eating bats is wrong... or have you committed Deuteronomy to memory?) Finally, there are many value systems that have nothing to do with God. Chiefly because healthy people do not require a divine spark to realise that murder is naughty. Probably the most popular among atheists is secular humanism, but an individual's value system is really inspired by a myriad of factors, from their formative years at a Respected Public School, to whether or not they get a 2:1 in Combined Media Studies from Loughborough University. And nearly all literature (to name but one of the Arts) informs morality in some way: Dickens, Orwell, Burgess, Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Tolkien, Stephen King's It, and so on. There isn't just One Book, One Chosen People, One Jesu (but if there had to be One Book, that book would be Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab.)
All of the reasons you listed for morality are either influences from religion or based on cold logic. There's also those primal impulses that our primitive ancestors passed on but those too were aquired one of those two ways(unless you believe instinct comes to us magically). Just because your influences weren't straight from the church doesn't mean they didn't originate from religion. It's hard to explain what a world without religion would be like because it hasn't been observed yet. If you want a book on morality try Lord of the Flies. When there's no father/god-figure to punish us eventually we run amok. Unless of course we generate some type of dictatorial government run by incorruptible computers(good luck). In short, your morals have been influenced by the great Jesu despite your distaste for him.
As far as blaming religion for horrible crimes against humanity goes...Well it's like blaming your parents. Sooner or later you have to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Unfortunately sociopaths live among athiests and believers alike. You seem to be implying that religion is the birthplace of sociopaths. If so then why so many athiest murderers? Please try not to become so unraveled. You're turning back into the Joker again and he's gotten quite old and predictable.
Sociopathy is a mental deformity. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in Jesu. I have never implied otherwise.
An no, I don't think instinct is magic. Ironically for you, that's what a religious person thinks. He thinks the world and everything that's in it was made by a magic man floating around in another dimension. I think instinct is a product of evolution. It's to our species' advantage that we have the capacity for empathy and co-operation. You can see similar traits in other social animals, like elephants, or chimps. Finally, your point about humanist morality being derived from religion is the opposite of the truth. Nearly all religions (even ones you must think are made up) share common basic morals (don't murder, steal, lie, be gay, etc.) They all make wildly different claims about the nature of God, and they all have their fair share of claptrap morals (don't eat bats), but on the fundamentals they tend to agree. Why? Because they are man-made, not God-made, and it's human nature to behave in that way. If you truly think our basic morals are God's invention, then presumably you're of the opinion that before Moses came down from the top of Mount Sinai, the Israelites went about the place killing, stealing, lying, and adulterating at will.
I closed my eyes, until they hurt,
And prayed it would go away, But when, again, I opened my eyes, This poem still looked really gay.
Happy to have pleased you
Beginning a new thread like a charismatic renewal of an old religion, this is an answer to atheists, a declaration of victory in the battle between enlightened secularism and Christianity. Or stated with recognition of human frailty, as Jesus taught to state, I preface anything I say with realization that Betelgeuse is 800 times the sunâs diameter and is so far away that nobody living today will see it, but only its light sent hundreds of years ago. And though it is unimaginably big and far, much greater things were flung by someone (Oh, sorry, that presumes too much.) My mistake, of course, is inferring God from science, instead of not-god from science.
Now where were we? Oh yes, we were relating morality and religion. Or stated another way, we were relating principles that hold society in harmony, with ideas about God. They seem unrelated to me, but I find it interesting that most religions hold the same morals in regard to stealing, killing, fraud, and the like. Religions differ on morals about the eating of bats, the covering of womenâs faces, and the killing of insects. The first set of morals derives from polite societyâs needs, and work just fine either couched in dogma or without religion. The second begin with writings and clericâs decrees. Just because these âmoralsâ get stuck into religion does not make them part of true religion. What could the eating of bats have to do with recognition of God? Jesus made this point clear, as anyone can see from reading him apart from later writings of his church. Christianity is about Christ (duh) not about superseded Old Testament texts or something a monk wrote in the fourteenth century. In summary: donât get me started.
Ok, so some nutty morals got "stuck into" religion, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with bathwater, right? I mean, just because parts of the Bible have been corrupted over the years by some random chumping clerics, that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't the son of God, right?
Actually, wrong. For all the insanity in the Bible, by far the most extraordinary claim is that a man called Jesus was born of a virgin, was the son of an omnipotent God, and died on the cross only to come back to life and appear (rather mysteriously) to some of his followers a few days later. If you hadn't heard any of that before, and I just told you it happened, you wouldn't believe me. Why? Because it's clearly absolute fucking bollocks. And here you have a book, written God-Knows-When by God-Knows-Who, full of claptrap (by your own admission), and yet when it claims the Ultimate Claptrap you say "No! that bit of ridiculousness is true, the 'do not eat bats' rest was written by a monk in the fourteenth century!" Even if you take the Christ (duh) story in isolation, and treat it as some sort of moral lesson, it still gets us nowhere. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Christ (duh) died on the cross for our sins so that we may be forgiven and go to Heaven. Is it a good thing for an innocent man to heap all the injustice in the world on his own head, and pay for it via the medium of some obscene sacrifice? Does such an act absolve us in any way? Think about it. It's not justice: it's fourteenth century psychobabble.
Your summary of the Faith in Paragraph 2 follows roughly the Apostle Paulâs development in Romans, and also teachings of the unknown writer of Hebrews, books with substantiated dates in the first century. Your assertion that the âfundamental tenet of Christianity is that Christ died on the cross for our sins so that we may be forgiven and go to Heavenâ fails only in the last word. Your inclusion of Heaven as a GOAL of Christians, well, you probably got it from some little hardshell Baptist town in Alabama. At least you are sticking, for the most part, to tenants of the faith and not arguing against some later additions to Jesusâ teachings, as most unbelievers do.
Where you go astray is in discrediting religion on principle, using arguments from enlightened secularism. Betelgeuse shines up there to humiliate all such reason. Small we are and small our thinking compared to Whoever put it there. I suggest rather comparing your summary of the Gospel to faith in atheism, agnosticism, a dried and painted goatâs head, or whatever. At some point, each of us surrenders to mystery, which appears to grow before us faster than science explains it. Mysteries we never saw seem attached to every scientific advance.
Where you go astray is in implying the necessity of Religion from the inevitability of Mystery. I can't explain why we're here, or how it all started. There are infinitely many things I don't understand-- science will explain some of them, but I know there are some things it will never explain.
Does that mean I should make up an explanation, or put my faith in someone else's (necessarily made-up) explanation? Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must hang our heads in shame. I don't know if the Universe was made by a God or a He-Man or a Gelatinous Cube or a Whatever. How could I know? How could anyone know? My point is that even if there is some grand scheme, some meaningful wider context to our actions, then any such scheme is unknowable. What's left is the freedom to choose how we live our lives according to our own conscience. The christian religion offers a terrible explanation for why world is as we observe it (science is better), and constitutes an even worse basis for morality (your own conscience would be better). Even my stripped down characterisation - Christ dying for our sins so we can be saved and live in Paradise with Him - is a guffed-up abdication of responsibility. I'm going to dismiss it as such. "... reality, human existence, is infinitely baffling. One gets one explanation - the Christian, the psychological, the scientific ... but always it gets burnt off like summer mist and a new landscape-explanation appears. He suggests that the one valid reality or principal for us lies in elutheria - freedom. Accept that man has the possibility of a limited freedom and that if this is so, he must be responsible for his actions. To be free (which means rejecting all the gods and political creeds and the rest) leaves one no choice but to act according to reason: that is, humanely to all humans." John Fowles
I attended Stephen Hawking speaking on philosophy at Caltech recently, if you can call twitching his eyelid speaking. âNothing can be known except through science,â he said. And when someone asked what existed before the Bang, he said, âThat can never be known.â
Now we have the Higgs Field, a kind of universal molasses all particles slog through, if we can even describe them as particles. It replaces the ether that light used to flow though before we learned it did not exist. My point is not âthe necessity of Religion [derived from] from the inevitability of Mystery.â Nor should we âmake up an explanation, or put faith in someone else's explanation.â I am not convinced that âif there is some grand scheme, some meaningful wider context to our actions, then any such scheme is unknowable.â âWhat is easier to believe? That there was always something or that there was once nothing? ... Christianity says that creation has a beginning, middle and end. The Greeks claimed that creation is a timeless process. Both are correct. All that is created and is therefore individual has a beginning and an end; but there is no universal beginning and end.â John Fowles âThis underlying unity of reality (God) is central ⦠the future of theology and our understanding of 'God', to explore the properties of this Space we all find ourselves existing in.â Geoff Haselhurst, Karene Howie at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ âFrom his present dissatisfaction, man reasons that there was some catastrophic wreck in the past, before which he was happy; some golden age, some Garden of Eden. He also reasons that somewhere ahead lies a promised land, a land without conflict. Meanwhile, he is miserably en passage; this myth lies deeper than religious faith.â John Fowles
Do you think that the laws and initial conditions that determined the properties of the universe are consistent with the existence of intellegent life?
If your first paragraph is correct then nothing existed before the universe. If you say no, the universe emerged; then you include whatever it emerged from in a new definition of the universe. You go beyond Stephen Hawking when he says we can never know what existed before the Bang. You say âThe properties of the Universe are what determine the Laws and Initial Conditions.â
John Fowles asks, âWhat is easier to believe? That there was always something or that there was once nothing?â Not that the easier thing to believe is more likely true, but the more reasonable thing is. A Model is like a worldview; a framework for testing predictions, an adjustable framework. Blaise Pascal, mathematician in the seventeenth century was testing the wager: Is it reasonable to believe in God. Either God exists or he does not, and we cannot use reason to determine which alternative is true. However, our lives may be affected by the alternative we choose. Since choosing to believe that God exists may lead to greater overall happiness, and nothing is lost if we are wrong, Pascal decided it is better to accept the theistic alternative. Since then, science has revealed much. I think that between then and now, it has pulled more in the direction of god than no-god. 374 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
