Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Gods, Les Visible, and Pascal's Wager

What's a bloke to do? Here I am with a desktop overflowing with unfinished pieces - 'World Death Organisation', 'Satanism and the Self', 'Bonuses for the Most Expensive Fuckwits in History', 'The Daily Global Fear and Desire Index' etc. etc. - and all of them knocked back.


I knocked them back because... who gives a shit? Or to put it another way, we're at the town meeting, called because a thirty metre tsunami is due in an hour, and a voice pipes up asking what the council's going to do about the cracks in the footpath that the tremor caused. And the guy's got a point: the cracks are so bad that you could fall and break your hip. But in the face of the tsunami... who gives a shit?

Actually that's just our little world. Truth is, back in the real world everyone is rolling their eyes, catcalling, and otherwise laughing their heads off. Broken footpaths, the collapsed bus shelter, and what-about-the-insurance, is all they want to talk about - and who is this dickhead blathering about a tsunami? What tsunami? Doesn't he watch the news that guy? Sheesh! If there was a tsunami, they'd tell us. The worst is over - they said so on the news!


Yeah well, we'll leave them to it. We're having a whole other conversation, and there, between 30m waves; and bits and pieces of broken infrastructure, one of them is a topic worth discussing and the other is a mere series of clues pointing to it. Can you dig it?

---

Still, a little nagging voice says that maybe it won't be so. What with the death cult following the Fabian creed of gradualism, perhaps there won't be a tsunami at all - just more run-of-the-mill rollers wearing away, wearing away. Dig it - it's the condemned man keeping his fingers crossed that he won't go before the firing squad and will instead be sentenced to hard sodomy for the term of his natural life. "Oh thank God, it's only daily rape." Whew!

But really, as if the death cult would be so rigidly doctrinaire. If gradualism suits, they'll use it. And if a world war is what's required, then dandy, cue the fire bombing. Or whatever! - they're nothing if not versatile. As if the people who control our education, media, and government are going to leave any bases uncovered or otherwise resile from anything because, well, "That's just going too far..." Besides, there's just too much now and it's there for anyone with an ounce of curiosity to see.


Just to be precise, I figure we're in for an unholy trinity - Economic Collapse: 426 trillion imaginary dollars. Never mind the 'recovery' - is everyone familiar with a 'head and shoulders' curve? Okay, so we're at the shoulder and now comes the long drop, all the way down. Cue the, um... 'Great Recession' is it? Ha ha ha. I guess that's like a Great Depression but with more hype. And more deaths - six million in the US alone last time around. Global Pandemic: A fake virus treated with a vaccine that's no such thing. Will this be the greatest act of mass murder in history? Sure, why not? The CFR/Bilderberger mob has already declared that five billion dead would be just dandy. World War: Iraq, Afghanistan, even the coming smashing of Iran - all sideshows. The big game? Russia v Nato. And are Ladbrokes offering odds on Israel nuking someone? If evens is the best you can get, it'd be worth laying a hundred bucks on.

Any one of these would qualify as an event of unparalleled wickedness. And we're going to get three! Yay - fans of history, rejoice! And sure enough we, who ordinarily prefer history at a bit of a remove, ask the question - What's to be done?

---

Well, we must oppose it! Fight Fight Fight! Well... there will be fighting and no mistake. We'll meet the enemy and he'll be us - the streets will run with blood and the death cult (looking down from their corporate boxes) will roar with laughter. Who said there's East and there's West and never the twain shall meet? He didn't own an Armalite obviously. East/West - North/South - Muslim/Christian - white/coloured - rich/poor - military/civilian - It's time to do the us-and-them cha-cha, and all to a rat-a-tat beat. Buddha was bullshit and his so-called "middle way" nothing more than an excuse for Hegelians to smash two opposites together. Bring on the Revolution! And cue the impossible voice-over guy - "This revolution has been proudly brought to you by International Banking."


If people want to pile in on that, good luck to them. I'm sure the death cult won't have seen them coming. Meanwhile where I live, in this cardboard cut-out town, in a cardboard cut-out state, in a cardboard cut-out country - with Rupert Murdoch in charge of the paper, scissors, and Perkin's paste - ain't nothin' gonna happen. Between the bang and the whimper (with no third option), it'll be "A whimper for me please. And how much is that? Ten trillion dollars? Um... okay, just one then, and not so big thanks." What nice manners we have, even for our rapists.

---

"Hey nobody, what's that in the title, about Les and Pascal having a bet or something?" Oh yes, I do thank that imagined fellow for reminding me. It seems that in setting the mood in the first couple of paras, I've done my usual trick and written a thousand words already. But rather than quit and come back, I'll just plough on.


I have Les pegged as today's Hunter S. All he lacks is an editor to sort out his possessives, contractions, and plurals, ha ha. Sorry Les! (He also lacks Thompson's uncannily accurate descriptions of the paedophocracy, which until Jeff Wells laid them out, I'd always taken as a variety of metaphor. Those stories about Thompson? Well, if Operation Mockingbird and Laurel Canyon got funky together, and the result was a natural child, what would that offspring look like?)

The above is not me dropping any dark hints about Les. I have as good an ear for falsity as anyone, and I've yet to hear Les strike a false note. There are real people in this world and Les is one of them. Or to put it another way - I wouldn't bother discussing Les if I thought he was bullshit, or insubstantial, or any other epithet. I come here not to bury Les, but to praise him (backhanded, of course...)

---

That being said, let's carry on - the point of the exercise here is merely a continuation of me turning Les' discussions of the coming tsunami in deus ex machina terms around in my head and wondering at them from different angles. And that's when Renaissance man, Blaise Pascal, stuck his tuppence in. Primarily Pascal was a mathematician who, amongst other things, built one of the world's first calculating machines, invented the science of hydraulics (and the syringe specifically), and was otherwise the founder of the modern theory of probability.


As if that wasn't enough, he was also a religious philosopher who spent the whole latter half of his life cloistered in the Jansenist convent of Port Royal. Cloistered or no, he never forgot the libertine friends he'd made during his 'worldly period', and with them in mind (and as you might expect from a mathematical expert in probabilities) Pascal sought to appeal to their scepticism by way of a simple bet with what's now known as Pascal's Wager. Here's Encyclopaedia Brittanica -

Pascal assumed, in disagreement with Thomas Aquinas but in agreement with much modern thinking, that divine existence can neither be proved nor disproved; and he reasoned that if one decides to believe in God and to act on this basis, one gains eternal life if right but loses little if wrong, whereas if one decides not to believe, one gains little if right but may lose eternal life if wrong. In these circumstances, he concluded, the rational course is to believe.

It's hard to believe I know, but I'm not the only fellow who turns things around and comes at them from different angles. Brittanica again -

The argument has been criticized theologically for presupposing an unacceptable image of God as rewarding such calculating worship and also on the philosophical ground that it is too permissive in that it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences.

Good point. But you've got to love this - "...it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences." Ha ha ha, that sounds like every religion ever invented doesn't it? It certainly sounds like the Christian church.


Unsurprisingly, with Pascal effectively an adherent of a Jewish sect (er... that would be Christianity), the whole discussion is one of what's-in-it-for-me, driven by the twin carrot-and-stick prospects of the fear of damnation versus the promise of a glorious eternity. And me, I have to ask the question: What sort of insecure God is this?

If a fellow was an incarnation of Francis of Assisi (say), leading a life of perfect virtue devoted to the well-being of all living things, would Pascal's God get angry with him if he didn't know who He was? Absolutely! The Christian God (besides being a slavish adherent to the old bullshit maxim of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse') is a jealous one who visits the iniquity of the father upon his children to the fourth generation merely for failing to acknowledge him. Jesus Christ! As if a God who's every kind of 'omni' wouldn't be above such petty concerns? Where's the serenity?


Bugger it. Why don't we turn Pascal's wager on its head - and plug it into Les' deus ex machina while we're at it? And so: given that Les' manifestations of supernature are not insecure and do not demand we tip our hat every time we sneeze; given that a shit-storm tsunami to end all shit-storm tsunamis is definitely coming, and if anything was ever going to warrant a deus ex machina response, this is it; given the rightness of Epictetus' discussions of 'what is in our power' (thanx Kikx), with stopping a tsunami not being one of them; and not forgetting yours truly being a Buddhist of his own description, attempting to embody the right end of the continuum (at the top of the page), we arrive at the following 'thus' -

Supernature or no, if one sheds fear and desire, and acts with reverence for all things as if they were possessed of supernature, if right, one gains all that might be hoped for, but loses little if wrong, whereas if one embraces fear and desire, and effectively reveres the self, if right, one gains little beyond the ephemeral, but if wrong... "Hey, the ocean's just gone out. Let's go down and look."

32 comments:

Sabretache said...

Wow!

Impressive stuff there Mr Nobody. VERY impressive - classic even.

Talk about hitting nails squarely on heads with riveting and thoroughly entertaining panache.

Thanks.

kikz said...

'Supernature or no, if one sheds fear and desire, and acts with reverence for all things as if they were possessed of supernature, if right, one gains all that might be hoped for, but loses little if wrong, whereas if one embraces fear and desire, and effectively reveres the self, if right, one gains little beyond the ephemeral, but if wrong... "Hey, the ocean's just gone out. Let's go down and look."

shit, I’m braindead… been up for hrs, kneading this… done the morn school taxi run.. and now it’s time for tribe to be home…..
for me – your question isn’t a question of ‘either this/or that’.. one to exclusion of the other…
but a combo of both and to what degree…..

*can hear noby thinkin* kk! always w/the degrees!!!! shite mate!

ok, I guess we need to define terms..
fear is pretty easy… no bother there…

term: supernature – I guess, would mean – godspark/simple organic lifeforce/vibration w/in all?
or
the ‘I AM THAT I AM’/life exhibiting consciousness/supra-consciousness?
----- don’t know if this consciousness exists as analog continuity? but that aspect is irrelevant.


term: desire – discernment for preference of condition; attraction/repulsion/indifferent – positive/neg/neutral
desire is intrinsic to life -
desire is attraction or repulsion - desire or discernment exists even on a chemical level.

molecules discern/desire
but are they conscious? do they individually contemplate their desires/discernments or assign/ascribe feelings or emotions inre those desires?

macrophages discern and have memory of past encounters (the ‘then’), but do not dream of future.. they operate in ‘now’. simple duality.

kikz said...

part II.....

apparently 'we' are conscious and do (think/reason/contemplate future). how we think can/does affect how we feel emotionally and physically. we operate, in triplicate ‘the holy trinity, if ya will’– remembering the past, acting in the present, and contemplating acting in the future.

term: reverence – conscious recognition and assignation of quality toward a state of being or behavior exhibited – again.. discernment – attraction /positive

I AM, THAT I AM.
noby, …….. for us….it’s all there w/in the ‘self’ … the I AM(consciousness) and the ‘THAT I AM (supra-consciousness) the observer that contemplates the I AM - is the activation of the innate but latent higher capacities. the ‘self’ - the discerner who desires – either to revere or not revere.

is not the 'self' (observer) also possessed of this same supernature that affords the capacity for reverence – &……. also…..a portion of 'the all'?

one can, in such a manner/degree - revere ‘self’ or ‘portions of self’… BUT, that ‘self reverence’ does not necessitate the negation of reverence for the supernature of others.
nor does it mean that one must choose to be ruled by desire and fear. go back… what did Epictetus say? the only condition we can control - our thoughts… what does the kybalion say? in so many words, same/same. the universe is mental.

i have sikh friends... who acknowledge and revere the 'god spark/divine fire' - supernature - divine-archetype w/in all of us…. themselves included….

why can’t ya have both…?

ya can… noby.
the trick is in the discernment - the qualities of the desire… what is desired? is the desire morally worthy? is it harmful to self or others? can the desire be met or not? what feeling does the desire produce?
actions/consequences of either met/not met….. hot/cold. scratch/don’t scratch. fulfillment/longing. love/hate. good/bad.

why would we have been given the capacity, if not to use it? especially to its highest and best use?
much-less negate it??!!
or
if desire is viewed as an affliction/suffering, why not apply reason and make the best use of it? lessen the suffering. thru reason turn suffering into ….joy…

this is absolute free ‘fukin’ will in motion/on wheelz.

we choose the the thought/action and determine a preference for the action/consequence/feeling that desire/preference elicits.

the only way I can come at it.. is how I view reason and freewill.
if we were not meant to make the most the of the latent capacities (personally I consider reason/freewill, the creator’s greatest gifts) why were we given them? to squander? to lanquish in suffering?

or
even take the creator out of the question…..
why did we develop them as animals? if they are not used to their highest and best use, eventually we could lose the capacity to use them…. the brain it’s not a vestigial organ that we don’t necessarily need to successfully function in the environment - granted brain cells/connections are culled in huge numbers from birth to around the human age of 5 and regularly into adult life for a myriad of reasons.

but – desire/discernment Is neither good nor bad……. (freewill) is primacy.

utilized wisely, discernment is the base of reason…

and if there is supernature or not, creator or not, living a reasonable, examined, life of moderation as the old greek told.... is reward enough.. ya made the best of what ya had... :)
hugz mate
k*

slozo said...

I've often thought of the same thing, Nobody, when deciding whether or not it was harmless to follow the traditions of my parents and believe in God and all that stuff, just like they were taught by their parents.

My parents, thankfully, especially my crazy dad, also taught me to think very independently, and I will be eternally grateful for that life-skill. And when I turned a certain age, I questioned why, if an all-knowing, all-powerful omniscient god existed and was benevolent, would it create such a world full of pain and misery for so many, and only allow very few to really have enjoyable, beautiful lives? I remember the answers they all gave me - my dad, my mom, even the priest who was a nice approachable guy - were not predicated upon facts at all. It seemed as if they chose to ignore the facts as they stand . . . that by creating "free will" doesn't mean you have to create free will that will cause some to fight each other, kill each other, dominate, subdjugate and torture each other. How can one have free will constrained by a certain body, placed in certain situations, brought up a certain way? It's not even close to free, I thought! Real freedom would be a floating orb of light and conciousness that could transform itself into whatever it wanted at any time . . . now we are talking freedom! Tongue is firmly in cheek, but you get my point.

So, I came to the conclusion that if there was a god, he was a cruel, horrid entity that used us like a rabid dog's chew toy. Thankfully, I had been born one of the lucky ones, in a place where I was privelaged not to be horribly abused from day one like so many millions are every day in the world. I certainly didn't thank god for that luck of the draw, as that would have been pretty cruel to not think of the thousands of kids born on the same day as I, except in abject poverty, hunger, with no parents around, diseased, later to be abused, mutilated, tortured, killed.

Who would want to believe in a god like that?

I agree very much with your conclusion . . . we should strive to live a wholesome, helpful existence, appreciate beauty, pass on what wisdom we gain, and strive to leave behind us a more loving, caring environment for our progeny. A small community of people doing that will do more than a world of people hoping and praying that god helps them out during times of trouble while paying tithes to the religious merchants who promise them an express pass to heaven.

nobody said...

Hullo Sabretache, nice to have you pop in. I was about to pile in with you at Craig's the other day but my battery died before I finished writing and by the time I came back the next day it was all a bit moot. Being in the Antipodes, 12 hours out of synch, does tend to kill real-time conversation.

And aargh it's Kikz, the best read woman in Texas! I'm glad you wrote all that mate because, a) I agree with it, and b) it shows me that I wasn't clear enough. Actually the thought had occurred to me even as I was posting but I couldn't think of a way of clarifying it. Not if I wanted to re-write Pascal's wager as succinctly as he'd done to begin with. Truth be known, what I'd fuzzily thought would be a simple enough matter was quite difficult. Sure enough I got a case of speed-wobbles and fell over and inserted the dot-dot-dot dialogue last sentence in order to wriggle out of it.

I'm thinking 'self-reverence' might have been a poor choice of words. What I had in mind was that variety of self-worship that is maxed out in the Satanists - 'all is subordinate to my desire' kind of thing. Otherwise, 'supernature' is me referring to the arse-kicking of the gods that Les talks about. Like I said, I was a bit too fuzzy.

And following on from this arse-kicking, Les urges us to a subsequent/concomitant right behaviour. And that I guess is my point - all that he urges us to do accords with what I as a Buddhist think right anyway. And there you have it - since his gods aren't insecure and don't care what drives my behaviour, only about the behaviour per se, then why don't I act as if what he proposes is the truth. I'm not saying it ain't, merely that it doesn't make any difference. The beliefs are neither here nor there - it's the actions that count.

Oh wait! Here's how I should have put it:

Whether the tsunami warning is factual or not, you may as well seek higher ground since if it's true you've saved your life with little lost if it's false. And were you to not seek higher ground you might conceivably lose everything if it's true and gain very little if it's false.

Damn, I wish I'd written that the first time round. Mind you, it's still ambiguous. Is the metaphoric tsunami in this metaphor, the death cult's act of mass-murder, or the god's arse-kicking response? Or perhaps it doesn't matter which it is? Perhaps it's all much of a muchness? Oh God, I've gone all wishy-washy again.

Thanks Slozo. As much as I'd like to respond to you thoughtful comment, I've got a coffee headache that would stop a Mack truck. And here's me without a Mack truck. Damn.

Did any of the above make sense? I can't tell anymore...

kikz said...

:) well now, i feel stupid :P)

i did enjoy the post.. but that one point - just got me...

silly me, w/the verbal tsunami... guess i should've first just asked ya ta clarify terms...
i was tryin to intuit...


i feel like an old SNL gilda radner skit...roseanna roseanna danna/does SNL news... rantX3.. and find out she'd misheard a main term....and in her chagrin, blink and quietly say..
'nevermind' heehee!

noby, it was a great post.. that one proposition just tore my brain up... :)

Destiny said...

Well nobody you have done it again - amazing !!

"If a fellow was an incarnation of Francis of Assisi (say), leading a life of perfect virtue devoted to the well-being of all living things, would Pascal's God get angry with him if he didn't know who He was?"

I was baptised Catholic and have had this argument with Christians all my life . In my view everything in this dimension is an extension of God, therefore everything is relevant ( how can it be otherwise ) the keyword is EVOLVING - every action creates a ripple - and these vibrations are eternal in varying degrees ( it is the butterfly effect ) and it does not matter how small or insignificant we feel an action is - ultimately everything is RELATIVE - including that desktop overflowing with unfinished pieces and regardless of the thirty metre tsunami due in an hour I would still love to read them :)

slozo said...

"Whether the tsunami warning is factual or not, you may as well seek higher ground since if it's true you've saved your life with little lost if it's false. And were you to not seek higher ground you might conceivably lose everything if it's true and gain very little if it's false."

What if the Tsunami warning was issued by an evil power that wanted to enslave you, and 'higher ground' was a trap? Or, at the very least, acting on the threat of a tsunami was a psychological device to condition you to adhere to further commands from the PTB? Doesn't it all depend on who is giving you the warning?

Who invented Buddhism as a religion, and to what purpose was it all crafted for? How was any religion crafted, and what was its primary purpose? I think those are questions worth answering, before using them as a moral pretext on any discussion about what we as a people should, or should not, be doing. Not that you gave it as a pretext - you simply compared those ideals with what Les has talked about - but I hate the way religion for most people has to be the sole conduit for living a moral, just and full life. I just don't think it should be entered into any conversation about living a good, peaceful life, considering that every dominant religion wielded by the PTB has only left death and suffering in its wake.

Not to smash your paradigm or anything.

For me, helping out your fellow man has nothing to do with Jesus, same as living a peaceful existence has nothing to do with Buddha.

nobody said...

Kikz, what are you on about? No need for any apologies. Frankly I think you were right to be confused. After reading it again I've decided that this is a very muddled piece.

Or then again it could be that I'm a bit light-headed and would gladly napalm a small South East Asian nation if there was a cigarette in it for me. It's amazing how slowly time passes when every waking moment consists of the thought, "That's what I want! A cigarette! Why didn't I think of that before? Oh wait, I did. Damn."

Thanx Destiny and Slozo. Neither of you have a cigarette do you? As for who invented Buddhism, there are so many! From the demon and demigod laden Tibetan variety through to zen with its 'just sitting'. Anyway like I said, I'm a Buddhist of my own description. Hmm... not that I've stopped and thought about it, but I guess my version is sort of zen-like, but with more talking and hand waving etc.

Miraculix (Doug) said...

"For me, helping out your fellow man has nothing to do with Jesus, same as living a peaceful existence has nothing to do with Buddha."

I'm with Slozo on this one.

And yes Mr. N, the hardest part of making a difference (no matter how small) is often finding enough of the proper motivation to "do the right thing" while gazing up the sheer face of the seemingly insurmountable mountain of shite that delivers us unto the brink of yet another "who gives a shit" moment.

As ever, my largest struggle as a "doer" is disengaging frustration and letting "come what may" find its natural place in the process of "doing by not doing" -- a glorious concept I've always struggled to apply directly in the heat of doing.

And Kikz, the Gilda Radner character you're thinking of is Emily Litella, the "sax & violins" lady. I too imitate her every time I say "never mind"... =)

Sabretache said...

"After reading it again I've decided that this is a very muddled piece."

I beg to differ. OK, first pass I struggled a bit but the references and clear analogies intrigued, in a subtle kind of way. A re-read was called for and I settled to it, concentrated with no distractions - and well worth the effort it was too.

On Slozo's point about the evil power: fair enough on it's own terms; but when the 'warning' comes from within and is actually the cumulative result of a wide 'reading of the rhunes' so-to-speak (which, on the purely temporal aspect of Nobody's post, I believe is the intent of the Tsunami analogy) then seeking 'higher ground' makes a lot of sense, quite apart from any considerations of Mr Pascal's wager.

On that narrow point of the post I was reminded of one by Jim Kuntzler a while ago. Not that I'm a BIG fan of Gentleman Jim for reasons I won't bore you with, but he does have a pugnacious sort of Brooklyn Street Trader wit which, coupled with solid insights into the unsustainabilty of our so-called 'civilisation' make him an occasional refreshing read. This from him on 28th October 2008:

"..... let's say that we are witnessing the two stages of a tsunami. The current disappearance of wealth in the form of debts repudiated, bets welched on, contracts cancelled, and Lehman Brothers-style sob stories played out is like the withdrawal of the sea. The poor curious little monkey-humans stand on the beach transfixed by the strangeness of the event as the water recedes and the sea floor is exposed and all kinds of exotic creatures are seen thrashing in the mud, while the skeletons of historic wrecks are exposed to view, and a great stench of organic decay wafts toward the strand. Then comes the second stage, the tidal wave itself -- which in this case will be horrific monetary inflation -- roaring back over the mud flats toward the land mass, crashing over the beach, and ripping apart all the hotels and houses and infrastructure there while it drowns the poor curious monkey-humans who were too enthralled by the weird spectacle to make for higher ground. The killer tidal wave washes away all the things they have labored to build for decades, all their poignant little effects and chattels, and the survivors are left keening amidst the wreckage as the sea once again returns to normal in its eternal cradle."

A good resume of the shit-storm dead ahead I'd say.

james said...

Pascall was certainly onto something. My thought is that he was trying to intrigue atheists with this proposition rather than stating a theological truth, though.

There's a problem with taking it at face value and basing an argument on it (either way) because we don't know what ole Blaise meant by "believe". Satan believes in God so presumably Pascall meant something more than acknowledging God's existence. And, also presumably, no one is proposing that God merely wants acknowledgment of his existence to qualify for an invite to the Grand Ball for Eternity.

One might think it reasonable to assume, Nobody, that it is close to what you were imagining happening in substituting Supernature in place of a vengeful God. To wit, "Supernature or no, if one sheds fear and desire, and acts with reverence for all things as if they were possessed of supernature, if right, one gains all that might be hoped for, ...".

The second problem which brings confusion and causes millions of people to end up chasing their tail when trying to nut this GodThing out is that the God of the Old Testament (God of the Jews) is not the God of the New Testament (Jesus). I'd like to call him the God of the Christians but unfortunately for them and the rest of us, they worship the God of the Jews, mostly.

Jesus had many problems with the "Scriptures" as they were known and "The Law" (i.e. God's edicts) and the priests who promoted it. It's in the Gospels for anybody to read. That's why the Pharisees hated him so and had him killed!

Nobody wrote, "If a fellow was an incarnation of Francis of Assisi (say), leading a life of perfect virtue devoted to the well-being of all living things, would Pascal's God get angry with him if he didn't know who He was? Absolutely!"

If Pascall's God is the Old Testament one then, yes, I agree. But if Pascall lived by Jesus' teachings (unknowingly), then, no, definitely not. The Christian doctrine on this is spelled out in Romans ch2 12-16,

"12Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. 13God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it.

14Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. 15This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, 16when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says."

In other words, we will be judged according to our behaviour in light of our conscience (which leaves the intriguing question, "What about those who have no conscience?")

So Pascall's wager makes more sense if we take his use of the word "believe" to mean, not just acknowledgement of God, but the acting out of Jesus' command to love one another (in word and deed, that is).

To round it off, you wrote, "But you've got to love this - "...it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences." Ha ha ha, that sounds like every religion ever invented doesn't it? It certainly sounds like the Christian church."

Yes it does, indeed, sound like the Christian church. Mainly because the Christian Church has followed (mainly) the Jewish God of the Old Testament which calls for retribution and even genocide (see the Book of Joshua) and ignored the teachings of Jesus.

Just imagine what the world would be like if all the Christian church leaders suddenly started acting on Jesus's teachings. No more lies, n o more paedophiles, no more deals with dictators; but don't get me started!

nobody said...

Very good. Everyone has their thinking cap on. Unlike me whose thinking cap turned to a puff of smoke (or a dream of one at any rate...) God my thoughts are so scrambled. I figure it's either Isreali mercenaries zapping my brain, or nicotine withdrawal. (Sorry, that was a jokey reference to the those bullshit Zelaya stories. It's yet more proof, if ever it was needed, that a) they never fucking quit, b) they make this shit up from whole cloth, c) if Honduras is a zionist target, then everywhere is, and d) their wickedness must be very great indeed if the... oh wait, I just had a thought. Let me look into into and see if anything comes of it.

And James, were you quoting the bible at me? Ordinarily that would get a fellow shitcanned (if for no other reason than cruelty, ha ha) but that was actually pretty interesting. Funnily enough, all my high-school was under a variety of Franciscans who pretty much dismissed the OT in its entirety. And yeah, in writing this piece, the thought did occur to me that I was sort of cheating by being so black and white in terms of the ten commandments etc.

Anyway, I hope no one's put off by my inability to usefully participate in this conversation, wihich is the most interesting one that's kicked off here for a while, but really I'm having difficulty stringing two coherent thoughts together.

james said...

Nobody, thanks for your indulgence of my "bible bashing"! I hope I was quoting the bible for rather than at you as I was trying to show (probably not very well) that the Christian part of the bible was in agreement with you . .. and Supernature . . . and Budhism on that score. The 'odd man out' in all this is the looney that shows up in a lot of the Old Testament which is the Jewish part of the bible.

To me, that looney God (there's more than one it the OT, imnho) sounds more like Mammon and Molech combined than anything you might read in the New Testament. If that's the case, then it explains an awful lot about our world today, I think.

Douglas Reed wrote a pretty interesting book called The Controversy of Zion in the '50s. The beginning chapters have some very interesting history of the writing of the OT (which also explains a lot)

james said...

On to more important stuff; giving away the cigs.
Giving advice to people giving up smokes is fraught with danger, but I'm ready to duck if need be.
I gave them up more than ... shit .. 30 years ago without a problem after pulling on them for about 15 years. I learnt from my (much) older brother who had to give them up because of impending heart surgery. He described himself as still a smoker who was going without a cigarette. SO when I decided to give them away for the last of many times, I decided that I was now, as of then, an ex-smoker, no ifs or butts (pun intended).
I also decided I would not give it any mental space. So I refused to think about it or talk about it to anybody. When the idea of them came into my mind I deliberately thought of something else. I had preplanned what I would think about so as to have it ready.

For two weeks I woke every morning feeling like I'd been to a party the night before and had smoked two packets of the damned things. But I didn't suffer any mental or psychological anguish as I had on previous attempts. The physical sickness, in comparison, was a doddle to handle.

The trick is not to try to give up or attempt to give up. But rather to accept that it's a done deal; a fait accompli; you've had your last smoke. And there's no negotiating with those 'little voices' in the back of your mind.
I've never wanted one since. Good luck, Noby

nobody said...

Thanks James, and Douglas Reed! What an interesting man - an anti-nazi, anti-semite, ha ha.

Hmm... sounds a bit like me...

kikz said...

thanks miraculix/doug...

thinkin' caps. yea, mine was apparently on backwards as usual.. emily latella.. not rosanna :)

rosanna's tagline was... 'jus goez ta showya itz alwayz sumtheeng :)'

such large questions...cripes.. this topic has driven the brightest and most sane among us bonkerz...
but the big picture… it’s simple – cognitive dissonance. just step back…

as the choir gives it’s craptastic rendition of ‘my god is an awesome god’ we make notes…..
Xtianity: patriarchal hegemony *check* murder inc.*check* offering in ritual murder - one's own child to prove faith*check*...
blind obedience to dogma*check* orig sin*check,check*

here…..naked apes –and becuz I made you and love you above the angels?….. here's freewill, but fer yer sake, don't you dare fukin use it... and here’s the knowledge of good/evil (discernment).. don’t use that either, stay ignorant… don’t have sex, but populate the earth… and btw, no pork and no shellfish, and most importantly torture to death anybody that disagrees w/you on any of this, to - ya know.. save their souls, for me. WTF?????? cognitive dissonance.

fuk that. and fuk yahwey. whatever it/he is …is one whacked meshuga!

i have no use for any ego maniacal 'supernatured' entity - self-described 'god' that deems my ignorance - of 'him', his laws of the monopoly game, or my unwillingness to follow to the death - his self appointed regents’ on earFF every fart - to be worthy of eternal damnation…

the only reasonable things w/in xtianity; the golden rule, love one another... kingdom of god is w/in.. keep the money lenders outta 'the house', that's it… simple, reasonable, beautiful. all attributed to jc. that ,,,,I can swing w/.

if pascal’s wager pans out……..I’ll be glad ta be wherever that is.. in antithesis of the above..i’ll be in good, interesting company.. tom paine, jefferson, franklin.. plato, hypatia, epictetus, and all the pagan deist mental elite that lived moral lives but died b4 ‘the good news’… fine by me. :)

kikz said...

speakin of hypatia..

my esperanto cousin just sent me this :)))

Agora
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvwN0DCQEiw

a film on hypatia's life..

*sigh :)*

tim said...

Slozo;
You've brought up the greatest philosophical question of all time: why all the suffering? Nobody has ever answered that question to my knowledge. But this is the best explanation. What is Reality? Consciousness associated with ever-changing energy. Consciousness is not a function of your brain, it is prior to it. Consciousness is never touched by any horror of ever-changing energy. I like to call that mother nature eating her children. If you identify with the body, you're in trouble because it will soon be worm food. If you indentfy with consciousness prior to the body-mind, no horror can ever hurt you. Why does the Divine manifest like this? Nobody has ever known.....

slozo said...

James,
I'm gonna have to lay into you a bit, mate, even if you did bring up Reed: the old testament is a collection of stories, pieced together by a mad sect of powermongers. So is the new testament.

The bible is nothing more than an extremely effective control mechanism, invented by the same beings that wrote the bible, invented the word god, and assigned unknowable and unseeable forces with the power to influence and create our reality: man.

To pretend that there is any worth at all in the wealth of disinformation designed only to gather you into a very large and sticky web of a belief system is disingenuous.

And Pascal meant to possibly . . . intrigue atheists?!? Quite simply, that is bullshit.

Pascal's wager is a method to enslave people into religious doctrines, period. His famous wager employs so many false premises, all leading to the need for religion, EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE. Like a good slave, you have to hedge your bets and get in line like all the other good slaves, just in case they're right! Laughable if it wasn't so effective.

Besides, Pascal belonged to a certain sect of Christianity called Jansenism, who envisioned only a select few of humanity predestined to be saved. Oh, wait . . . that doesn't eliminate a whole lot of other religions, does it?

Sabretache: fair point, and your interpretation of Nobody's allegory gives it a deeper meaning, and I have to say I am sure it's a lot closer to the truth of what he was getting at.

Nobody, I didn't give you the credit you deserved, and I blame it on time - I don't have a lot to spare reading blogs and researching minutae. I think I was just so turned off at being reminded of Pascal's wager . . . anyways, I'll leave it at that.

peace.

nobody said...

Ha, I'm glad I didn't write anything today since the conversation is so interesting. As for Pascal's Wager, how about this - it's a Pascal's Wager for atheists with 'actions' substituted for 'belief'. Does that work?

Aargh, whilst my brain is better than yesterday, I still don't have what it takes to nail this. And it took me three days to get Thursday's Times crossword! Bloody hell, I feel like Charlie in Flowers For Algernon (or Cliff Robertson in Charly, depending on whether you're into books or movies, respectively).

Anyway back on Monday to ponder at Barack Obama. Ciao ciao.

nobody said...

Hey folks, I'm just back from statcounter and I want someone to tell me this is bullshit -

esseop102b.eop.gov (Executive Office Of The President Usa) [Label IP Address]

District Of Columbia, Washington, United States, 0 returning visit

Date Time WebPage
10th October 2009 10:30:49 www.google.com/search?q=McMartin preschool scandal raymond buckley&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
churchofnobody.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

kikz said...

sorry y'all..

if i wasn't clear.. which i'm usually not..

i also stand in the slozo camp - morality has zip to do w/institutionalized religion.

you can imagine what kind of flack i ecnounter here is texASS for that sentiment. >:)

it's quite an oddity to hold such oppositional views(especially on religion) living in what is colloquially known as 'the bible belt'. w/a megachurch on almost every block... and, they are beyond nosy!

what church do y'all go to?

how dare someone!!!! quiz another on something so personal... beyond rude.

if pressed, or verbally assaulted over it...

my usual response (delivered w/a smile) is...
'i go to the church of 'none of your fukin' business'

our kids have also been schooled to elicit this response, if pressed.

but, above all... 'the shoa must go on'.. my 9th grade twins have started their jew shoa lessons at school.. one of 2 tomes they must read/be tested on.. *eyeroll*
i wonder how many wks this will engulf this yr... apparently my 7th grader's indoctrination has yet to begin this yr...

hmmm noby, i have no idea as to that statcounter biz...
could be one of rham's minionz on a search/destroy op.

Edo said...

It's Bullshit.

Or is it?

nobody said...

Kikz - crack me up!

Hmm... what would I say?

"Oh, it's one of 'em... Christian... Muslim... something or other. I can't tell 'em apart. Anyway, there's lots of standing up and sitting down and God and Jesus etc. What one would that be? Do you know?"

As for that weird hit. I suspect it's real. It's certainly mundane enough to be real. A single google hit, in, out, gone. English John made a good point. The cove in at McMartin was 'Ray Buckey' not 'Raymond Buckley'. And earning brownie points above and beyond, John put 'Raymond Buckley' into google and lo and behold he's a Democratic Party heavy. And he's 'a gay'! (but probably not Welsh).

What does it all mean? Hell if I know.

Ciao Ciao.

Anonymous said...

FB

Hi Nobby, I put this up over the weekend, maybe it got lost in cyberspace or maybe you decided not to use it which is ok with me but in case it was the former, here it is again.

This is one of those complicated subjects I have trouble coming to terms with especially since I have not had the time to do it justice. I have been keeping up with the comments though and calling someone out over on the Campfire. That one was a bit low key and understated though :-)

To shortcut the thinking and writing process I will just say that I am right down the line with Mir and Slozo on this one. I am sure there were more points I wanted to make but they escape me just now. Oh yeh, free will. God gave people free will so they could be discerning, more like a rope to hang themselves with but here is the catcher. If people choose to lead selfish generally bad existence they have exercised their free will to sin and they will be cast down and suffer the consequences for ever. If on the other hand they choose to do good works and lead a selfless life, that is not them exercising their free will to do good, that is God working through them. Talk about wanting your cake and eat it. It would appear that the universal God of love and mercy plays with a stacked deck. And if he has universal love and mercy why does he not work through the potential sinners?

I never really got into this smoking lark. I did do it for a while in the cinema when I was 14 and found that when I did I could chat up the girls who were 17. My, that was a big deal at the time, a schoolie chatting up working girls - girls who had jobs that is not social workers :-) Anyway Time came as it always does when I had to make a choice between being a smoker or not and I chose not. Probably the best done deal I ever did. Since I never really indulged I have no place to offer advice but several ex smokers I know tell me that CHAMPIX is the magic word. The course lasts about 6 – 8 weeks and you can continue smoking for the first 1 – 2 weeks after that you stop but at that time there is no more desire to carry on, allegedly. And it works, at last for the people I know.

Re Mr Obama and the McMartin preschool scandal, maybe being a happily married man he just feels he should know as much as we do on the subject.

nobody said...

quickly now since the library is closing - nothing to do with me mate, your thing didn't come through. If I don't post I say so and why. And why would I not post your thing?

Aargh, turning the lights off, gotta go...

james said...

Slozo, I've copied your comments and will insert my answers into it. I think it is the simplest way to do it. BTW, I am in agreement with what Kikz says and with you mostly as you will hopefully see-

James,
I'm gonna have to lay into you a bit, mate, even if you did bring up Reed: the old testament is a collection of stories, pieced together by a mad sect of powermongers. So is the new testament.


No argument there from me. In the OT some of the powermongers did some of the writing too. In the NT, they just edited it. I can add to this if you want.

The bible is nothing more than an extremely effective control mechanism, invented by the same beings that wrote the bible, invented the word god, and assigned unknowable and unseeable forces with the power to influence and create our reality: man.

Can't argue with much of that except to say that the powermongers may have invented certain words but did not invent reality nor God (or the concept of God depending on your point of view). Religions claiming things to be real doesn't make them so.

To pretend that there is any worth at all in the wealth of disinformation designed only to gather you into a very large and sticky web of a belief system is disingenuous.

Are you calling me disingenuous here? In all disinformation systems there are some truths (necessarily). If you are calling religions disinformation systems, then we are in agreement again. And I am largely in agreement with you regarding the bible as a whole. It is certainly used wholesale as a disinformation system/resource.

And Pascal meant to possibly . . . intrigue atheists?!? Quite simply, that is bullshit.

Quite possibly. It was conjecture on my part and I made that plain.

Pascal's wager is a method to enslave people into religious doctrines, period. His famous wager employs so many false premises, all leading to the need for religion, EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE. Like a good slave, you have to hedge your bets and get in line like all the other good slaves, just in case they're right! Laughable if it wasn't so effective.

I was mainly addressing Noby's question regarding what Pascall's God (and whomever that might be) would do with an imagined Francis of Assisi that didn't recognise him. To answer your point though, if you are conflating Religion with God, then I agree with everything you say. The objection quoted from Brittanica comes into play then and I agreed with it.
However, I believe that God and religion are quite separate things and Pascall's Wager, as quoted by Noby, didn't mention religion, only God.
It is interesting to note that neither Jesus nor Buddha started religions even though they both had ample opportunity. I think that says something.

Besides, Pascal belonged to a certain sect of Christianity called Jansenism, who envisioned only a select few of humanity predestined to be saved. Oh, wait . . . that doesn't eliminate a whole lot of other religions, does it?

That's interesting. Do you have a ref or link I could follow?

Noby,
If "actions" is substituted for "believe" then the argument has some chance of being argued, (I believe). I think this is so because actions have th potential to change a person's nature which I think gets more to the heart of what we are really taking about here.

Sorry about the length.

kikz said...

glad ya enjoyed my wee missive noby >:)

but, be careful w/those smok'n cessation(sp?) products.. we had a guy in dallas, wack out (used while drinkin) on one of em, try to go into a neighbors house as his own.. and got shot to death..by the poor old neighbor who thought he was being victimized by home invasion.

and er.. um.. i'd chk the sideeffects.. as 'death' is usually listed as one of em.

be careful.. :)


and to anon..

coff*'sinners'*coff - er um...

lemme just take the creator out of it....

the consequences of actions - not tempered by reason - serve as object lessons to those who would heed the idiotic deeds.

ie., a fool - learns frm his own mistakes...

the smart- learn frm the mistakes of others..

the idiot, never learns...

simple eh? :D

slozo said...

James,

You can google Pascal like I did to find out he was a Jansenist . . . it's even in Wikipedia, which tells me that you didn't even bother to put in the first effort. Why would I provide links? Find out yourself, as you found out any of your other info on archaic knowledge that can be gleaned from the interwebs. Heck, I didn't even know the tenets of Jansenism before I looked up Pascal right proper.

Not to be too flip, because I do appreciate the effort to answer and comment on my remarks.

"Can't argue with much of that except to say that the powermongers may have invented certain words but did not invent reality nor God (or the concept of God depending on your point of view). Religions claiming things to be real doesn't make them so."

Well, you agree with me then . . . in total, since I never said that the powermongers invented god - I said the same beings who invented all this other shit invented the word god . . . MAN. You may have missed my point there.

"Are you calling me disingenuous here? In all disinformation systems there are some truths (necessarily). If you are calling religions disinformation systems, then we are in agreement again. And I am largely in agreement with you regarding the bible as a whole. It is certainly used wholesale as a disinformation system/resource."

Yes, I was calling you disingenuous. And, you prove it with your own words, in fact: you are largely in agreement with me on the bible as a whole, and admit to its use wholesale as a disinformation system and or resource. And yet, you use it extensively, quoting it out of the blue on a piece that deals with the concept of whether or not there is a god or not. You yourself point out that I may be conflating religion with the concept of god . . . but you brought the bible in, buddy. That is as big a cornerstone of the religious pyramid as you are going to get!

And finally, Pascal's Wager must be thought of in context, and here I am referencing your comment that it is I who is conflating religion with god. I don't want to sound so constantly defensive in this post, but I think I am actually seeing things how they were meant to be portrayed by Pascal, and more importantly, his controllers, who most certainly gave him these "thoughts" (his 'Pensees') to make public.

The whole thing IS in the context of religion . . . and in his works, from which the wager is plucked out (take note of that), he contends that man cannot trust reason, ESPECIALLY in areas of religion. Thus, his reasoning follows, because you cannot trust yourself or your own judgement, you must blindly follow religion, which will show you the light. So to speak.

Anyways, in our culture, you cannot speak of god without religion, being so intimately intertwined with the concept that it is impossible to seperate them . . . heck, any organised thought or doctrine around a god of any sort can be categorised as a religion, so the point is a bit moot, if you ask me. But to start quoting from the bible, as opposed to just making the connection that Pascal's Wager is meant to lead the masses to the greatest control mechanism of all, religion - that's a whole different ball of wax.

And lastly, prove to me that Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama (the supreme Buddha) were anything other than regular humans, or perhaps even figments of someone's imagination?

If you can't, don't assume their existence has been proven. You should know better, since you seem to be up on the bible, and should realise that Jesus bears a strong resemblance to Osiris . . . or was it Horus? Nimrod? Can't recall now, need my sleep.

Anyways, appreciate the response. Look forward to more discussion in Nobody's next story . . .

james said...

Slozo,
First you chuck a tizzy because I asked you for a link-
"You can google Pascal like I did to find out he was a Jansenist . . . it's even in Wikipedia, which tells me that you didn't even bother to put in the first effort. Why would I provide links? Find out yourself, as you found out any of your other info on archaic knowledge that can be gleaned from the interwebs. Heck, I didn't even know the tenets of Jansenism before I looked up Pascal right proper."

Then you want me to prove to you that Jesus and/or Buddha were more than humans (presumably God or Gods)-
"And lastly, prove to me that Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama (the supreme Buddha) were anything other than regular humans, or perhaps even figments of someone's imagination?"

That's not how it works, mate. Try Google ... or maybe Wikipedia.

nobody said...

Oh you two...

I suspect you're actually within a whisker of each other in terms of position. Sure enough, were you to be having this conversation face to face all the visual clues would be there so that you'd know that there's nothing worth getting het up about. But here we are in cold digital text which magically converts scale 1 lightness to scale 10 sneering.

But I could be wrong! In which case, carry on! Don't let me stop you...